Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Matrix Reloaded Filming Wants to Shut Sydney Down 494

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-for-a-couple-days-anyway dept.
ro_len writes "News.com.au is reporting the producers of the Matrix Realoaded are looking to shut down Sydney for the filming of the final scene which involves flying a helicopter across the city at less than 600 feet above ground. It is supposed to be the most complicated sequence ever filmed." Just plain nuts. Here is a previous story about the trailer, and another one announcing the film.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matrix Reloaded Filming Wants to Shut Sydney Down

Comments Filter:
  • Shutdown ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZaneMcAuley (266747) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:51AM (#3678777) Homepage Journal
    What if it doesn't reboot? :O

    • by thomasj (36355) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:07AM (#3679357) Homepage
      What if it doesn't reboot? :O
      2002-06-11 13.30.05: [notice] Shutting down Sidney.australia.matrix
      2002-06-11 15.46.17: [notice] Rebooting Sidney.australia.matrix
      2002-06-11 15.46.32: [error] Sidney.australia.matrix bootstrapping failed
      2002-06-11 15.46.33: [panic] scp root@Sidney.australia.matrix:/home/{neo,morpheus,t rinity}/.profile .
      2002-06-11 15.46.36: [restore] Sidney.australia.matrix reloaded
      2002-06-11 15.46.37: [warning] Older version overwrite (Agent Smith 2.0 -> 1.0)
  • Why bother emptying out the city? Surely if there's a horrible accident, they can simply reload Sydney from the backups...

    What? You mean we're not in the Matrix? And that red pill I took was only Nyquil?

  • A cartoon draw-over would be original. Those matrix style movements are overused.
  • Who decided that? The movie company that is making it?

    Sounds a lot like some PR mumbo jumbo to me.
    • Indeed. I'd have thought that the (20? 25 minute?) Mini car-chase sequence in The Italian Job might have rivalled that. Not because it was complicated as such, but because they deliberately screwed up all the traffic signals (without the authorities telling anyone), brought Turin to a halt, and then had to find a way of filming dramatic car-chase shots in the middle of a lot of annoyed Italians.

      Certainly one of the most entertaining sequences ever. And Turin didn't even get the payback they wanted: since the city was basically a Fiat factory (is that right? I get muddled when it comes to cars), they wanted the film to use Fiats, but Minis were just, well, cooler :)
      • they deliberately screwed up all the traffic signals (without the authorities telling anyone), brought Turin to a halt, and then had to find a way of filming dramatic car-chase shots in the middle of a lot of annoyed Italians.

        My question is: How could they tell it from a normal traffic day in Turin?

  • This vsCGI (Score:2, Insightful)

    by viking099 (70446)
    I always thought this was the kind of stuff that CG effects were supposed to replace.
    Personally, I like it, as I (and I'm sure many of not most people) can tell the difference between CG and real stuff.
    Plus, the adrenaline factor should be fairly high, because you KNOW that it was done in the "real world" (tm), and not on come computer screen somewhere.
    I can't wait to see it!
    • Re:This vsCGI (Score:4, Insightful)

      by paradesign (561561) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:00AM (#3678847) Homepage
      this is the stuff that cgi cannot replace, the realism just wouldnt be there, now the fight scene at the subwaystation, thats what cgi is for.
      • How much of the fight scene at the subway station was CGI? I thought a lot of that was wire work, multiple cameras, blue screen and polystyrene walls etc. I didn't think that much was comp generated. Computer cleaned up and tweeked I'm sure but not computer generated.

        What info have you got on this scene?
        • the entire environment was cg i believe. they filmed on a stage with blue screen and foam and wires and such, but the set was built to match the computer model of the set. in the end the camera moves on set were inputed into the computer giving an exact motion match for the background, the two parts were then composited, digitaly i assume, together.

          so this may not have been the greatist example, but it is an excellent example of seamless cgi integration into a scene. Just because its cgi dosent mean that its entirely cgi.

          • I guess it depends on what you define as CGI. Your view of how the scene was produced ties up with what I believe. However, very little of the scene was actually computer generated which is what I tend to think of as CGI. Modelled, put together and cleaned up on a computer. Generated, no.

            However, the scenes of the harvester and the racks of pods were all computer generated (and looked really good as well).

            Can't wait for Matrix 2 though....
    • Re:This vsCGI (Score:3, Insightful)

      by st0rmshad0w (412661)
      No this is the kind of stuff that MODEL MAKERS were supposed to replace. But then again they're a nearly extict breed these days due to over reliance on CG.

      I remember alot of great scenes that were done with model work. Including cockpit perspective fly-thrus.
      • It's all about costs. They *could* make a CGI or model version, but they probably thought a little palm grease would save them time and money.

        If they get blown off for being too wacky/arrogant, then they'll look at whether to do models, CGI or a mixture of both.

        Even with all the cash the Matrix made, they still need to avoid blowing the budget with this movie. I don't blame them for investegating this angle.
    • CGI eh? Are they going to film it in PERL or C I wonder ;-)
  • by Coplan (13643) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:54AM (#3678792) Homepage Journal
    Abeit, I like a good action flick as good as the next guy. But shutting down a whole city? A pretty major one at that! If it were for scientific experimentation, then I could maybe be persuaded to support the concept. But for the sake of entertainment?

    How much money in the form of opportunity cost do you think the city might lose?

    • Hrmm...they might be able to work something out if they can find a typically very slow day during a very slow time.

      A smaller-scale shutdown of several New York city blocks was done on an early Sunday morning for The Devil's Advocate.

      Still, dunno how easy it would be for an entire city on any day of the week -- even during a holiday.
    • Abeit, I like a good action flick as good as the next guy. But shutting down a whole city?

      I couldn't agree more- I mean where does it end? What if MIB2 decideds they want to fly a mothership 600' over the planet?

      • That brings up another point...

        I'm assuming that 600' means 600' from the ground. I don't know Sydney that well...but I'm making a broad assumption that there are plenty of buildings over 6' in height (roughly 6 stories). Aside from pissing people off by shutting down a city...what's to say that the stunt will work perfectly? What's to say that they don't accidentally crash that sucker into one of these buildings? They'd end up with a crap load more pissed off people.

        • So according to your logic, one story is 100ft? Those aussies must be giants!
        • by Arcturax (454188) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:50AM (#3679205)
          'm assuming that 600' means 600' from the ground. I don't know Sydney that well...but I'm making a broad assumption that there are plenty of buildings over 6' in height (roughly 6 stories).

          Only 6' in height and 6 stories? Is this the building out of "Being John Malcovich" on crack?
        • Aside from pissing people off by shutting down a city...what's to say that the stunt will work perfectly? What's to say that they don't accidentally crash that sucker into one of these buildings? They'd end up with a crap load more pissed off people.

          They're asking for the city to be shut down because they're taking the possibility of an accident into account. If there's an accident while the city is shut down, they can just pay the huge amount of money for repairs. If there's an accident while the city ISN'T shut down, they would kill a lot of people and injure many others.
    • by Croaker (10633) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:16AM (#3678973)
      Yeah. It's not unheard of, though. I remember hearing that the main eccentric guy in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" got severely pissed about some network filming a civil war miniseries down south had all of the roads covered with dirt and other stuff... apparently, he took pains to piss movie people off. Something I'd be all for.

      I remember when they were filming some movie about the Brinks robbery in Boston, they forced people to take down TV antennas from their houses, so it would look more authentically 1930's (this was back in the 70's, before cable). Apparently strong-arm tatcics were used.

      Finally, I was watching a TV show about a famous local chef, who was contacted by movie people, who wanted to use his restuaunt as a setting in a movie. Great, he thought. The people came in, and completely changed over his place, making it look nothing like the original. He asked "uh, so why did you want to film here if you wanted to change everything about the place?" "Oh, because the *light* was just *perfect*."

      One wonders why they need to actually fly an helicopter over an actual city, resulting in the shutting down of said city. Even if computer graphics can't give them what they want as far as flying over the city, surely they could use one of those light-weight robotic camaeras on a radio-controlled helicopter to film the scene. That would be a lot less dangerous to the general populace, meaning it would be a lot less disruptive.

      Geez. It's all just freakin' entertainment. I'll be glad when it all goes virtual, and we won't have to deal with these people who think movies are more important than real life.
      • by Brento (26177) <brentoNO@SPAMbrentozar.com> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:41AM (#3679598) Homepage
        Yeah. It's not unheard of, though. I remember hearing that the main eccentric guy in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" got severely pissed about some network filming a civil war miniseries down south had all of the roads covered with dirt and other stuff... apparently, he took pains to piss movie people off.

        When the crew filmed downtown, he hung Nazi flags from his balcony, ensuring that they wouldn't film his house. That one was priceless.
      • surely they could use one of those light-weight robotic camaeras on a radio-controlled helicopter to film the scene.

        Not to be pedantic, but the quality from the setup you described would be orders of magnitude too low for even an independent film.

        Hell, just let them take Polaroids and make them into a flipbook if that's the quality you're going for!
    • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ian_Bailey (469273)
      The article says that they are only going to shut down one long street (and area) on a Saturday morning. They are not shutting down the entire city, and the mayor (or whoever the guy was that was responsible) said that any local businesses would not be compromised and be forced to shut down.

      I repeat, RTFA

    • How much money in the form of opportunity cost do you think the city might lose?

      Probably about as much as they are charging WB to shut down "the city."

      And while we are addressing that, they are not shutting down the entire city, just a section of it.
    • Abeit, I like a good action flick as good as the next guy. But shutting down a whole city? A pretty major one at that!

      There are major cities in Australia? Here we call them 'prisons'.
  • Seems a bit OTT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sheriff_p (138609) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:54AM (#3678793)
    Surely computer graphics these days are advanced enough to eradicate the need for real filming? Maybe this is all just a giant publicity stunt?
    • To quote Corona [corona.bc.ca] quotion Joel Silver:

      Producer Joel Silver says one visual effect for a shot in one of the sequels took two-and-a-half years to create, and prepares for production on "a 14-minute sequence that is the most complicated sequence ever put on film. Silver talks about reaching the peak of visual effects in a recent story in The Sydney Morning Herald, and promises that The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions will provide more than just spectacular visuals. "It's about all that stuff that's going on in our lives that we can't really grab onto." he says, suggesting the films will continue to explore the deeper themes tapped in the first groundbreaking film. Our only question is, this complicated sequence doesn't involve any combination of Keanu and advanced problem-solving, does it?
    • Re:Seems a bit OTT (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dswensen (252552)
      If they use computer graphics instead of actually filming it, not only will people be completely unimpressed, but they will bitch about how fake the CGI looks, regardless of how fake it actually looks, and talk about how much better it would have been if it had been made with stop-motion by Ray Harryhausen himself.

      I think they're going for "actually filming it" as a more impressive effect than using CG.
  • by Out4Blood (247541) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:54AM (#3678799)
    There is no helicopter
  • Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Diabolical (2110) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:54AM (#3678802) Homepage
    From the bottem of the article

    Part three The Matrix Revolutions is also in production and will be released in December 2000

    Sorry to have missed it...
  • FX (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xonos (218227)
    isn't that what special effects, green screens and CGIs are for? i would be so pissed if the closed down philladelphia for two days, so some hollywood producer can make some money.
  • With the CGI ability that we have, they should just create the whole thing in a computer and film the action on a blue screen stage.
    Much safer, and you can do some impossible camera angles too.
    • Part of what makes CG look so, well, CG, is those unrealistic camera angles. There are some things that just don't work when you're point of view isn't governed by the laws of physics.
    • You bring up a good point. I wonder why they're not taking advantage of this technology. After all, wasn't the original taking advantage of some really cutting edge tech?

      As someone pointed out above, it's probably a lot of hype. Kinda like when "Fargo" came out -- supposidly it was based on a true story...and we found out AFTER they got their award that it was all hype.

    • by Conrad_Bombora (225559) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:14AM (#3678962)
      This is the matrix remember?
      You know the movie that knocked Hollywood on it's ass with bitching CGI, not lame CGI like phantom menace.
      Why where the FX better in the Matrix then in Phantom Menace?
      Answerer, the filmmakers of the matrix realize that not every thing can be done with computers. Some shoots just look better when filmed with real sets not CGI blue/green screen sets.
    • CGI != Live Action. Maybe one day computer generated effects will be able to fool most people, but it's not there yet. It seems the makers of the Matrix realize that(at least for this sequence).

      D
  • Renting the city? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by chobee (555901)
    How about making the film makers pay all the taxes for those two weekends? Since citizens won't have full use of the city why should they pay taxes?
  • by iceT (68610) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:56AM (#3678819)
    They must just be talking about the flight path and some margin around it.....

    gee, I hope they talk to God and get a good weather day...

  • by xtermz (234073) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @09:57AM (#3678821) Homepage Journal
    From the bottom of the article :

    Part three The Matrix Revolutions is also in production and will be released in December 2000


    Not only are they filming the most complicated sequence ever, but they will be the first movie company to premiere a movie in the _past_. How they plan to manage the space/time disruption is apparently a closely guarded studio secret
    • Ummm, duh - they just change reality. Didn't you see the first one? Next time you get deja vu, run to the theaters so you can see the third part!
  • by ObviousGuy (578567) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:00AM (#3678842) Homepage Journal
    Isn't that what movie sets are for? Can't they rebuild a replica of the city they want on some backlot?
  • by Lerc (71477)
    All they need to do is wait for a big sports event and place a huge tv screen just out of town and supply a lot of beer.

    Supply enough beer and you've got all the time in the world. They won't be finding their way back in a hurry.

  • Not so rare (Score:3, Interesting)

    by YanceyAI (192279) <yanceyai@yahoo.com> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:02AM (#3678854)
    It's common practice for parts of Los Angeles to be closed for movie making, even if the sequence is not that dangerous. When I lived there, there were several times I was unable to get to work or park once I arrived. At least once that I can remember, they shut down all of downtown. It is extremely annoying to have your life interupted for the sake of entertainment. I might have been more forgiving, though, had they been working on the Matrix!
  • by f00zbll (526151) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:04AM (#3678868)
    like the matrix and watched a dozen times, but shutting down a whole city does seem a bit extreme. It's good they are thinking about people's safety and also secrecy, but is it really necessary.

    I just hope the W brothers don't kill themselves in the process of trying to "out do" the original matrix. The two of them have already spent quite a few years to this effort. It's always tough when a director makes a really successful movie, because the expectation are set unrealitically high. If they manage to pull it off, they may become hollywood heavy weights. If they flop, it's going to be a costly blunder.

  • Other ideas (Score:5, Funny)

    by Moita Carrasco (571940) <(tp.obacten) (ta) (olos)> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:05AM (#3678878) Homepage
    Other "my whacky final scene is whackier than yours" ideas:

    - Close down New York to make a film about 9-11, idea: actually fly airplanes into stuff, randomly. Pilots and crew: CIA, FBI and American Government officials.

    - Close down Jerusalem to make the final scene of a movie about the Israeli+Palestinian conflict. Idea: a huge crane pounds Arafat and Sharon repeatedly against various religious monuments.

    - Close down Paris to make the final scene of a film about the world cup. Idea: a giant soccer ball rolling around the streets with "losers" painted on, squishing right-wing partidaries.

    - Close down a strip of territory in Kashmere to make the final scene of a film about the alleged India-Pakistan conflict. Idea: Nuclear warheads detonated on top of CNN reporters who claimed a nuclear war was about to happen, as if it was a light subject you can kid around with.

    Apologies: I apologize for this post if you don't like it. It will avoid me getting into discussions later. Thank you.

    Moita
  • by Zeddicus_Z (214454) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:06AM (#3678896) Homepage
    Guys... it's two too three streets being shut down, for a peroid no longer than two days. Buildings along George and Sussex streets are being evacuted for public safety reasons. Other than that, its business as usual in our fair city.

    I repeat. They are *not* shutting down all of sydney.
  • Just the area around the helicopter's flight path will be shut down. Still, that's quite a good chunk of the city. :) But it's nowhere near close to everything.
  • by MavEtJu (241979) <slashdotNO@SPAMmavetju.org> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:08AM (#3678904) Homepage
    Is it just me, but does the article give no reason at all why it has to be `shutdown'?

    But it will probably go something like this:
    Filmmaker: "We need all the people out of the city for two days."
    Mayor: "That's not possible. We can ban jetskies from the harbour if you like."
    Filmmaker: "No, we need the city, not the harbour. We are going to do some stunts there."
    Mayor: "Sounds impressive, but what if all the people start riding their jetskies in the harbour instead of going to the city? I don't like that, and I've made it illegal already."
    Filmmaker: "Please have a look at this script, it's specially printed for you on green paper with some transparent parts for the so called `special effects'".
    Mayor: "It's a deal, I'll just make being in the city on these days illegal, except for people with jetskies. After all, they might go ride them in the harbour if they're not allowed to put them in the city."

    People from Sydney should get the subtleties...
    • by foobar104 (206452) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:57AM (#3679280) Journal
      Filmmaker: "Please have a look at this script, it's specially printed for you on green paper with some transparent parts for the so called `special effects'".

      Okay, while Sydneysiders do seem to make up a disproportionate fraction of Slashdot readers, I'll go ahead and spell this one out for the rest of the planet.

      Aussie money is printed on plastic-coated paper in various colors. Each bank note has a little transparent plastic "window" in it as a counterfeit-countermeasure. (Heh.)

      So green pieces of paper with little transparent bits are Aussie $100 notes. So the joke is that the mayor is being bribed by the W brothers.

      Get it? Huh? Get it? Hah!

      (More info about Aussie money can be found here [aussie-info.com].
  • by deggy (195861)
    I regularly fly around at 200 feet during the course of my job. 600ft is pretty high really, and certainly high enough for an above-average helecopter pilot to maintain control while flying down a wide city street.
    • I am reminded about a sceen in Terminator 2 where they flew a helecopter underneath a bridge. I am not sure if that was really done, that was MAYBE 5' off the ground. Which leads me to belive it was an affect. I dunno, I am not a pilot. But, based on your post, your kind of hinting it. Care to shed some light on the subject for me ? :)
      • by gorilla (36491)
        Helicopters, and to a lesser effect wing effect, find it easy to fly very near the ground. The airflow is disrupted by the ground, and this reduces the drag and increases the lift. This page [142.26.194.131] and this page [cybercom.net] explain it well. This means that flying 5' off the ground is actually very easy, and as long as there is adequate room above the craft, it should be possible.

      • That scene wasn't faked, I remember hearing about it in the commentary.
    • I regularly fly around at 200 feet during the course of my job

      Oh, it's not fair, I want to be an LSD tester as well :-(

    • by Myriad (89793)
      I regularly fly around at 200 feet during the course of my job. 600ft is pretty high really, and certainly high enough for an above-average helicopter pilot to maintain control while flying down a wide city street.

      For a project I was working on I wanted to do some shooting over Toronto at a height that would have worked out to around 400ft. They wouldn't let me.

      The problem, as I discovered, is not an issue of whether it is safe to pilot at that altitude, but should some malfunction or other problem cause an emergency (or crash) landing. Legally (in Toronto anyway) the pilot must fly at a minimum of 1000ft in order to have enough altitude that (s)he can move the helicopter away from densely populated areas in the case of an emergency - rather than arbitrarily falling on top of whatever is directly below.

      Now, in the case of a Sea King (the helicopter of "choice" for the Canadian Navy) I wouldn't want one flying at *any* altitude over a populated region. Something about 30,000 parts flying in formation that makes me nervous.

      • Legally (in Toronto anyway) the pilot must fly
        at a minimum of 1000ft


        That's not entirely correct. First of all, it's a Canadian law, not a Toronto one. Second of all, it applies to all aircraft, not just helicopters. And finally, you must fly a minimum of 1000' above the highest object, not just AGL or ASL (ground/sea level). In Toronto, obviously, that's the CN tower. So you'd have to be pretty high up.

  • Not to be confused with a "Me, too!" posting (never done on /.) but it would seem to be a typo as far as the 3rd part of the series being released in 12/2000....

    Of course, it could also be a bug in the Matrix that was not caught by an agent.... not deja-vous, but something else entirely... unless someone did see the 3rd edition in 12/2000.... oh, man, I need some coffee now....

  • Not the first time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:11AM (#3678935)
    In the beginning of the film Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise, he runs around an empty Times Square. Word has it that Hollywood paid $3 million to shut down the most active city in the world for a few early morning hours.
    • by RazzleFrog (537054)
      What is even more interesting is that Time Square is hardly all of New York City and you'd be suprised how quiet things are on an early Sunday morning in the summer. Very few people live in Times Square (unless they occupy a box). Either way, most residents are in the Hamptons, the Jersey Shore, or Connecticut and tourists are easily shepherded out of the way.

      They actually do a ton of filming in the city. There is a city agency dedicated to it - Mayor's office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting [nyc.gov].
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:01PM (#3679753)
      Word has it that Hollywood paid $3 million to shut down the most active city in the world for a few early morning hours.

      They shut down Tokyo to shoot the Times Square sceene?

  • There is another story about at The Age [theage.com.au] website. A funny quote was from the premier of NSW, saying "Sydneysiders had to put up with such disruptions ... if the city was to keep its reputation as a hot filmmaking destination." Funny, I thought that cities were for living in and business, etc, etc, not for rich-ass movie companies to play with. But again, we have dumb politicians bowing down to the almighty dollar. Hey, this just confirms in my mind that sydney is willing to prostitute itself out to feed an overwhelming addiction (but I'm from melbourne, so I spose I would say that)

    But at the end of the day, I reckon them filming it is just a publicity stunt - that way they'll at least the entire population of sydney to watch the movie ("see, honey - that's where I work"), buy the DVD, get the action figure doll. Sure, it'd prolly b cheaper to do it all on the computer, but u can't buy people's sentimentality.

    • by Bonker (243350) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:38AM (#3679113)
      Funny, I thought that cities were for living in and business, etc, etc, not for rich-ass movie companies to play with.

      You've just got no clue why cities want movies to be filmed in their jurisdictions

      Think about the budget for big-time blockbusters like Matrix 2 and 3, both of which are being filmed in and around Sydney. Together, they probably total around 300-500 million dollars. Much of that money will be spent on production. A significant portion of that money is spent on things adjacent to the filming process, like catering, for example.

      There are restaurants in Sydney that will be made for life with the massive amounts of catering required by such a huge production. Even if Carrie Ann Moss isn't allowed to have more than a celery stick for every meal so that she still looks good in skin-tight latex as Trinity, you can bet that Bubba the gaffer and Hank the electrician want steak and potatos for every meal. Both the Wachowski brothers are big guys. I bet they don't skimp on the catering either.

      Also, since the actors have been in Sydney for about a year, do you think they're living in trailers? Probably they're living in fancy hotel aparments for thousands of dollars a month.

      Money makes it worth it.
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:14AM (#3678956) Homepage
    • [Lord Mayor Frank Sartor] said under the council's Living City policy, the city cannot be empty on weekends, or business owners prevented from trading.

    ... unless sufficient amounts of cash are provided? Principles aside though, I simply can't see how paying a realistic amount to compensate each and every business and individual displaced by this activity could work out as less than doing a kick ass CGI version of it.

    Unless of course Sydney is working on the "First one is free" principle (or second one in this case), to make themselves look like a great (i.e. cheap, compliant) location for foreign film companies. Fair enough, but I'm kind of picturing how we might respond if (e.g.) a Bollywood [planetbollywood.com] company thought it could just breeze in and pay to have most of Detroit forcibly evacuated. "Get lost," springs to mind, along with stronger objections and possible a slew of litigation against the City.

    As I said, it's up to Sydney if they want to turn themselves into a giant movie location, but I'd be surprised if it does their reputation as a business location any good.

  • by CraigoFL (201165) <slashdot@@@kanook...net> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:14AM (#3678957)
    The Daily Telegraph has learned the helicopter will include a camera mounted in the pilot's seat, giving the moviegoer a bird's-eye-view as the aircraft whizzes across the city.

    Personally, I'd prefer that a pilot would be mounted in the pilot's seat, considering how difficult the stunt is and all...

  • shutdowns (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jhughes (85890) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @10:21AM (#3679006) Homepage
    Hollywood does some strange things for movies. The movie Field of Dreams was filmed in my hometown of Dubuque Iowa, and the field is but 26 miles away.For teh final scene fo the movie they wanted to have a line of cars, at night with lights on, stretching as far as possible. So, for a few hours, they had shutdown a rural road (not a big deal), half of one highway and half of another highway.

    All for a snaking line of cars at dusk with headlights on.
    Tell me computers couldn't have done that:)
    • Re:shutdowns (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dman123 (115218)
      Don't forget that we're talking about 1988 or 1989. CGI was not exactly as easy as it is today. The SFX in the movie were pretty low key and not supposed to get in the way of the story. I think it's a pretty safe bet that a few hours of filming and minor disruption in the middle of Iowa easily beat the expense of trying to go with a computer.

      The car scene was easily the most emotional one in the movie. A fake shot would have killed the mood. Ah shucks... you've made a geek get all teary.

  • It is all around us. You can see it when you look through your window. You can feel it when you do your laundry. When you pay your taxes. When you read slashdot. When you are driving down in Sydney and the city shuts down for a black helicopter.

  • "Matrix Alley" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Howzer (580315)
    For most of the last couple of years I worked on Clarence St right across from "Matrix Alley" as it has come to be called, just down the hill towards Darling Harbour from the QVB.

    They shut down this part of the city regularly during the filming of the first one and this latest one, and it caused few if any problems, although one bicycle in the immediate area did go under during that time it had nothing whatsoever to do with the filming.

    Of course it did wonders for productivity as we'ed crowd to the windows whenever some kind of limo/minivan would pull up to try and catch a glimpse of someone famous, all the while trying to be cool and say how we "weren't really that interested" and stuff. Heh.

    Now that the "Eastern Distributor" is finished it's actually pretty easy to divert traffic out of the center of the city, so I really think the byline of "Shut Down Sydney" is going a bit far.

    Sounds like a publicity machine in overdrive to me.
  • Why not just shoot the thing at 5 in the morning and digitially chop out any people that may be hanging around the streets?

    Because Cameron Crowe got to shut down Times Square for a few minutes while making Vanilla Sky. The Wachowskis pissing match does not impress me.
  • Publicity Stunt (Score:2, Interesting)

    by parad0x01 (549533)
    This is definetly a publicity stunt. The entire city of New york was CG'ed for Spiderman.
  • Part three "The Matrix Revolutions" is also in production and will be released in December 2000.

    They sure are taking this time phasing thing to a new level. Maybe Lucas could use this to finish Star Wars parts 7-9.

  • Does Miss Parker and the Centre [turner.com] know about this?
  • Just put a huge supply of beer outside the city. The people will leave voluntarily and get too drunk to find their way back for several hours.
  • All they need to do is put on a kegger at the beach. The city will empty itself!
  • Godzilla (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Joao (155665) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:04AM (#3679332) Homepage
    I remember when they were filming Godzilla here in NYC. I was trying to get to work, and they had closed off 23rd street to shoot one of those "tons-O-fish falling from the sky" scenes. There were a bunch of us standing there for several minutes on rush hour, trying to get to work or school, and the one security guy holding us back. Then one guy decided to just keep going, and the whole crowd just marched ahead while the security guy kept trying to hold people back.

    I wonder how many security guards they're gonna need to hold back a city's entire population.
  • Part three The Matrix Revolutions is also in production and will be released in December 2000

    Damn! I missed it!

  • ...the producers of The Matrix will funnel cash through a front corporation to fund the re-emergence of Films88.com in Sydney, then tip off the MPAA. The MPAA will then shut Sydney down, and the camera crews will spring into action. :-)

    If that doesn't work, Plan B is to have the BSA tell Sydney to 'prepare to have your software licenses audited'-- as we all know, that can basically cripple whatever entity it's aimed at for a while.

    ~Philly


  • I'm pretty fed up with movie CGI stuff. I like older movies where even though you know stuff isn't real, it at least is physical. Like Yoda looked way better and seemed more huggable when he was a rubber puppet. CGI is a cheap way to lie to the audience. How about all those old epic films where they had REAL crowds in the Collesium? I find it rewarding to think that the filmmaker went to some amount of trouble to produce the illusion of the story.


    A lot of people are referencing the final police chase shot in Chicago for the Blues Brothers. How lame would it have been if those cars crashing were all CGI? Wouldn't it just be GTA3 on the big screen?

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen

Working...