Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

A Quick Peek From the Matrix Set In Sydney 164

Posted by timothy from the as-if-they-were-real-helicopters dept.
We posted recently about the planned shutdown of part of Sydney for filming of the upcoming Matrix sequel. Now reader zobier points to a followup describing the shooting, and since he was on hand to see it first-hand, writes: "I went along to watch the filming, it was very cool (I love helicopters tho' ;) They didn't block off much city space, maybe (100 - 200m), and the chopper flew down the square (Martin Place) between the buildings about 5 - 10m above our heads. Many onlookers were videoing and photographing the scene. At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film." GoogolPlexPlex adds a link to coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Quick Peek From the Matrix Set In Sydney More

A Quick Peek From the Matrix Set In Sydney

Comments Filter:

  • Realism? (Score:4, Funny)

    by URoRRuRRR ( 57117 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:30AM (#3840348) Journal
    At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film.

    Y'know, if I'm on the street and a helicopter goes flying by with people fighting on it, I'm going to take a picture.
    • You sure have a hell of a flash on your camera, if it's useful from that distance. If not, you're just stupid not turning it off. If you can't turn it off, you're stupid for buying such crappy camera. You do the math :)

      Szo
    • if i'm not wrong the helicopter was carrying the people filming the show, and it was just for a scene for the movie showing a bunch of empty and deserted streets.

      neo wasn't fighting with agent smith in the helicopter since none of the actors were on site as many fans hoped they would be, as stated in the article.

      read the article first man.

      • I have no idea what the actual scene is supposed to be, but the article does say that stuntmen where there. Close-ups can be shot in a studio and cut in later.

    • Re:Realism? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jedi Alec ( 258881 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:59AM (#3840594)

      Apparently you didn't quite get the first movie though.

      There is no spoon. Or in this case, no helicopter....

    • I'm afraid you don't understand: you are a criminal.

      You wish to take photos of a movie set; that set is the intellectual property of the movie studio. That the movie set is on public properrty, and that the public has been restricted from it in favor of the movie maker is immaterial. The MPAA will protect its intellectual property regardless.

      In any case, allowing anyone to take photographs is dangerous. It is posible to violate copyright by photographing copyrighted works. Your camera, to be legal, should contain hardware than makes it impossible to take photos unless the subject of the photo is cleared with the MPAA or other competent quasi-governmental agency. If your camera is not so equipped, it's clear that you intend to use your camera for illegal violations of copyright.

      Of course, since it costs money to combat piracy and to review applications for taking photographs, we must insist that you buy film or other recording media specially taxed to pay these costs. (Excpetion: professional producers, as of movies or commercials, are exempted under law, to promote American cultural hegemony.)

      We know that you don't have a license for a camera, and that you haven't paid the recording media tax, because, in accordance with the Intellectual Property Protection Accountability Act, your computer recorded its Globally Unique Identifying Number when you posted your message. As all your commerical activity is recorded under your name to prevent fraud, it was a simple matter to cross-reference purchase records and computer records.

      By the time you read this, you should be hearing the knock on your door.

      • Re:Realism? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Disevidence ( 576586 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @08:08AM (#3840723) Homepage Journal
        "By the time you read this, you should be hearing the knock on your door."

        It was only the pizza guy. Crisis Averted.
      • Well said. While taking a vacation in Canada, we came upon a movie set for that Audrey Hepburn TV movie starring Jennifer Love Hewitt. I believe it was Montreal, and they blocked off a street to do a shoot where a convoy of military trucks were coming back to a welcome home parade after winning WWII (though shot in Canada, it was supposed to be taking place in Britain... there were British flags everywhere hanging from the buildings) My mom kept trying to take pictures of the set, but the guard got onto her for doing so, for the intel. prop. reasons you stated above. She eventually snuck in a few but LEFT THE FLASH ON! The guard turned around and saw her, and almost confiscated her film.

  • Camera flashes (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ethelthefrog ( 192683 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:35AM (#3840359)
    Oooooooh, it makes me giggle when those silly little automatic cameras go all flashy at night. A tiny little camera with a tiny flash isn't going to illuminate a large helicopter at a range of 20m.

    The camera moments that really make me laugh are flash photographs of cityscapes at night taken through windows. Well, everyone needs pictures of bright reflected flashes. My album is full of them.

    EtF
    • Oooooooh, it makes me giggle when those silly little automatic cameras go all flashy at night. A tiny little camera with a tiny flash isn't going to illuminate a large helicopter at a range of 20m.

      No, but when the camera shows the helicopter in relation to the ground, they want to see a regular city street, not a city street with dozens of camera flashes.
      • That wasn't the point I was making. I agree that the film cameras will pick up all the flashes but, from the stills camera's point of view, the flash will be insufficient to affect the outcome of the exposure and is, therefore, pointless.

        EtF.

        • Re:Camera flashes (Score:3, Informative)

          by chamenos ( 541447 )
          well, since the director was upset because the flashes would show up on the scenes taken and not because they would ruin the exposure, therefore you don't really have a point. you're addressing a concern that the director probably didn't have, no?
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • Err... You are aware that most non-professional cameras today decide weather to use the flash by themselves, and that you should therefor blame the technology rather than the user in this case?
              • Even some of the cheapest cameras let you turn the flash off again. I blaim the user for not choosing the right camera and film for the conditions.
                • That's quite a nerd way of seeing things. Most users have a camera to 'shoot a picture'. They are not interested in photography, they just want a picture to show that they were there. For a large part of the population technological equipment is something to use, and something to be afraid of. They don't know how it works, why it works; they don't care, don't want to care and don't bother. And I think that this goes for the majority of the population.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
                Comment removed based on user account deletion
                • ... and so it must be true that every camera lets you disable the flash.

                  As though the flash would have a detrimental effect on the picture.

                  As though some people care.

                  As though the people who DO care remembered to turn it off.

                  As though the flashes can't be cleaned out of the film using a tiny fraction of the movie's gi-normous SFX budget.
            • Alright, I just re-read the post I replied to and I don't believe I'm mistaken. I'll quote him for your sake:

              "That wasn't the point I was making. I agree that the film cameras will pick up all the flashes but, from the stills camera's point of view, the flash will be insufficient to affect the outcome of the exposure and is, therefore, pointless."

              What the poster stated obviously doesn't say that he was "poking fun at people who think that a tiny flash will somehow illuminate a giant outdoor area."

              The poster's original post does imply what you mentioned, but not the post that I replied to specifically.

              You should re-read my post and the post I replied to, since I think you are the who seems to be completely missing my point.

              All I've said above though, was after giving you the benefit of the doubt that all you did was overlook the specific post I replied to, and not that you just completely missed the point. I hope I'm not mistaken in this aspect.
              • "Stills camera" refers to a camera that takes still pictures, which are the cameras on the ground being used by onlookers -- not the camera being used by the the movie crew. That would be a "motion picture camera."

        • Re:Camera flashes (Score:2, Insightful)

          by limegreen ( 516173 )
          Ah, but the advantage of using flash at night (without a window in the way) is that it keeps the exposure short enough to reduce camera shake, objects moving, bluring etc. It's a choice between mostly black pictures, or mostly light blury pictures. Or use film suitable for low light (ISO 6400 or greater would be a good start).

    • Re:Camera flashes (Score:4, Funny)

      by CliveJones ( 591024 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:36AM (#3840561)
      I was driving through Parliament Square (London, UK) on Saturday night. A tourist attempted to photograph the Houses of Parliament.

      From a moving car.

      With flash.

      With the window closed.

      Sigh.
    • a beowulf cluster of those?
  • At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film...

    yea, those darn flashers
  • Where can the plot go from here? The end of the Matrix 1 was pretty much the end, wasn't it? Are we going to find out that the Matrix is Neo's father and will Neo get trained by a puppet?

  • Matrix pictures (Score:5, Funny)

    by JPriest ( 547211 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:38AM (#3840368) Homepage
    I took some pictures of the set but they turned out like crap, all you can see is a bunch of 111000110011001001101

  • The Flashes... (Score:3, Funny)

    by URoRRuRRR ( 57117 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:03AM (#3840407) Journal
    I don't think a lot of you are understanding why the flashes pissed of the director.

    Yes, a camera flash at that distance won't illuminate a hellicopter. That's good for side views or shots shot angling up at the hellicopter shot from below (probably a 45 degree angle)

    However, if the director wanted an overhead shot, or one angling down at the hellicopter, the street would be visible and that's where the flashes would be seen. The director probably wanted to see an average street so the distracting flashes were causing him lost time, film and money.
    • Money... Yes... They should be really concerned about that... How much are these going to gross?

      Even if they were to go over budget, be not as good as the original, etc. These films are pretty close to a sure thing...

      Poor director... Next time ask people..

    • I don't think anyone is missing the point. I think the flash issue is all the more frustrating to the Slashdot readership because, on top of the annoyance, the flash doesn't even do anything useful. That adds insult to injury.

    • Yeah, really. . . those thieves didn't even pay for the privilege of seeing the helicopter. Damned Australian movie pirates, anyway.

  • 100-200 m2? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So that means they blocked off an area of a whole 10x10 to 14x14 meters/yards then?

    Roughly the size of a large apartment.

    Amazing.
    • 100m x 100m is a hectare so they blocked of 1-4 hectares which is a very big apartment.
    • Close... The actual amount Martin Place that they blocked off was pretty small. I would say a bit bigger than an apartment. :) On the map they had the area "sanitized" between Pitt and Elizabeth.

      More to the point, the actual amount of area used was only a portion of a 2 lane street. The copter they used is a French made Squirrel with a nose mounted cam sphere. It has two engines... used because of close city quarters in case one fails. But the thing is about the length of 2 cars and only has 3 short blades. Pretty small but very slick looking.

  • plot speculations about the matrix reloaded (Score:5, Insightful)

    by target ( 97212 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:06AM (#3840411) Homepage
    So I wonder what the next movies are going to be about. At the end of the matrix, neo is like unto a god, and the agents can't stop him.

    Outside the matrix, neo is a wimpy bald guy who eats gruel and has no ability to fight the enemy.

    A movie needs conflict to be interesting. There's lots of obvious conflict available in the real world, where neo and company are underdogs in the fight against the machines, but the parts of the matrix that were really cool were *in the matrix*. So the major conflict being outside the matrix is out.[1]

    But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening. So my prediction is, right at the beginning of the movie, we're going to find out that the machines have changed something about the matrix that takes away some (but not all) of neo and company's power. That way they still get to do their cool slow motion three-d rotating martial arts, but they can't just win outright.[2]

    It's an open question, of course, whether this will be done well enough to allow you to sit back and enjoy the movie, rather than internally kvetch about how contrived things are.

    Note that the above is not based on any actual knowledge or information.

    - target

    [1] Of course, as in the first movie, there will certainly be some conflict outside the matrix. Expect that there will be twin threats, inside and outside, just as in the first. Expect also that those threats will be interrelated, so that solving one is necessary to or will solve the other.

    [2] This is perhaps supported by the title. If the matrix gets reloaded, will somee of the rules change?
    • The plot is suppose to be about how agent became a virus and keep getting mutlipied.

      Although I probably like yours better though.
    • First look at the teaser poster [corona.bc.ca] and more plot speculations were reported first at corona.
    • plot speculation?
      The matrix _has_ a plot?

      How about this...the superintelligent robots who managed to build a vast and realistic simulation of 21st century Earth finally get around to adding a login?

      Neo: It's asking for my password now...what do I do now morpheus???
      Morpheus:

      Don't get me wrong...I loved the Matrix, just why with these $100m movies dont they bother to pass the script to some experts (or anyone with a BSc) who can say if it is believable or not....i mean humans as efficient batteries, who would believe that?...

      And its not like you there is some physical law that a plot cant be both believable and fun...I can suspend my disbelief as good as anyone but sometimes its nice not to have to.

      • Lets face it, the whole idea is silly. Theres the whole laws of thermodynamics thing for a start but then theres this problem that they need some sort of artifical reality to make it work, and its really tricky, because they keep escaping and fighting and stuff. OK, so why not use Llamas instead. Or Cod. Problem solved - Next! Maybe its good that I'm nto a hyperintelligent machine ruling the world with an iron fist, er, manipulator.
        • I'd prefer they use Iron Chefs.

        • Re:Humans as batteries. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by dytin ( 517293 )
          OK, here are my theories about the matrix: First of all, remember that the only explanation that we have of the matrix is from Morpheus. Now, Morpheus said himself that humans did not know that much about the matrix. Perhaps Morpheus is wrong about the machines using humans as a power supply. Perhaps the machines need to keep humans around in order to do their thinking for them. Maybe the machines put humans into the year 1999 because they wanted to see how they were created. Also, about using Llamas, maybe when the skies were torched all species except humans were destroyed. I don't really know, but hopefully Matrix 2 will do some more explaining.
          • they are not hurting humas at all but rather the matrix was designed as the ultimate living habitat for humans, where robots handled all the 'living' for us and we simply live in an artifical reality. MAybe we had control over this matrix at one time and decided to live there because it was nice. And then maybe the matrix was and then we lost control and the matrix turned on its creators.

            Maybe I'm just making this up. (damn straight)
    • But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening.


      Having an immortal hero may seem too much, but it really isn't any different to other films. Name one action movie you have seen where you genuinely believed that the hero would die?

      Normally, common sense and experience dictates our hero will survive. In The Matrix, the story dictates this too.

      • Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @11:04AM (#3841960) Homepage Journal
        Neo is established to be more powerful than the agents at the end of the first movie since they have never had to deal with anything like him before. No doubt the agents can change and adapt.

        This is not like what I consider to be the worst movie I ever paid to see, "Spawn" wherein it is established early on that our hero cannot die (because he is already dead or some crap like that) and the in rest of the movie he is threatened with being killed by various forces. I would have walked out, but I thought my buddy wanted to see the rest... he was only staying because he thought _I_ wanted to...

        That movie was only worthy of MST3K, and I think even those guys would have a hard time of it.

        I'm sure the agents will return in new and deadly ways (not to mention those albino "virus" dudes)... also even if Neo _is_ unbeatable, all his friends, not to mention the rest of humanity, are not. Even if he cannot be defeated, can he save them? Believe me, despite all the hokiness and plot holes (and I'm saying this despite the fact that "The Matrix" is one of my favorite movies ever), there is plenty of room for real drama and suspense. Not to mention lotsa butt kickin' and eye candy.

    • But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening.

      I think your right about this.

      In the movie, scenes which take place inside the matrix are filmed in downtown Sydney. Scenes which take place in the "real world" are filmed on a sound stage. The scene being filmed in downtown Sydney is supposedly [slashdot.org] the final scene of the movie so it must take place inside the matrix.

      There's no need for a helicopter in the final scene if Neo has God like powers. He doesn't need to ride in one because he can fly and if he goes up against someone else in a helicopter he should be able to easily defeat them.

      I suppose one other possibility would be if Neo is not in the final scene but Trinity or someone else is. She doesn't have God like powers and this might make for a more interesting fight. Although I doubt they would do this.

    • But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening.

      No, he isn't.

      He may be invulnerable to anything within the Matrix, but that's a far cry from being all powerful. He can't create (or restore) life, and is probably not omniscient. So anyone inside with him (including people who can't leave - like the Oracle) would be vulnerable.

      There are other ways that he's vulnerable as well (see below)

      my prediction is, right at the beginning of the movie, we're going to find out that the machines have changed something about the matrix that takes away some (but not all) of neo and company's power

      Not necessarily - think of the Matrix as an OS, with the people and agents as apps, which interface with the OS via an API. Neo is special because he's not bound by the API - he can bang on the hardware directly... so all that's needed to create tension is an agent that has the same bit-banging privelidges too... (from what I've read, this is going to be part of the storyline..)..

      think about it: if a cracker and sysadmin both have root on a system, would the sysadmin change the definition of 'root', or would he try to subvert the cracker using existing privelidges? (Assuming he couldn't just disconnect the box from the network and reinstall.. which might be what happens in "reloaded" :o)

      While it may be possible they will "limit" Neo's power, it's not a requirement - and it would certainly piss off a lot of the people who are going to see it because they want to see Neo kick ass.

  • Camera Flash (Score:4, Informative)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:26AM (#3840449) Journal
    Why are there so many idiots with cameras? It's a major issue during the olympics as well...

    A camera's flash works for a very short distance, perhaps 100 feet... If you're any further away from the source than that, the camera flash distracts your subject, while NOT lighting up anything (except possibly the dust between you and your subject).

    If you don't know how to use it properly, shut it off... People have become accustomed to the flash on cameras, but few ever actually need it. Not to mention how much harm that flash does in the hands of idiots.

    • Re:Camera Flash (Score:2, Informative)

      by tim_uk ( 123339 )
      A camera's flash works for a very short distance, perhaps 100 feet...

      100 feet? Absolute and complete rubbish. You'll be very lucky to get ten feet with your average flashgun.

      Ever heard of the Inverse Square Law? Double the flash-subject distance and the amount of light falling on the subject is reduced to a quarter of that emitted.

      Tim

      • Actually, you wouldn't be very lucky to get ten feet with your average flashgun.

        Consider that most professional photographers will "bounce" their flash to avoid glare when shooting indoors, and that typically the light is bounced off of a surface 5-10 feet away and falls onto a subject an additional 5-10 feet away, just for a typical indoors bounce-off-the-ceiling flash.

        I have three flashes for my camera, a head-on one that can do about 25-30 feet without difficulty, an adjustable angled one that can do about 40 feet tops, and a shoddy little one that I have a bunch of filters for that manages about 20 feet easily.

        Though I appreciate the Inverse Square Law, you do not necessarily need a tremendous amount of light falling on your subject -- just enough to catch them on the film. Shooting a subject 40 feet away with a powerful flash, and 1600 ISO film, and you should be fine.

        leem

    • Re:Camera Flash (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      you forget 2 important things....

      1 - very very few people understand good photography.

      2 - Over 70% of the world's population is made up of morons and idiots.

      dont agree with #2? Go drive at 5:00 pm in any major metropolitan area.

      • Re:Camera Flash (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jafac ( 1449 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @02:17PM (#3843570) Homepage
        well, add to that the fact that on automatic, many cameras simply will not allow you to trip the shutter in low-light situations unless the flash is turned on. Most people use automatic cameras, and even if the camera has a way to let you override it, and even if the operator knows how to override it, it's usually not a simple task, UI wise, and likely takes more than a few seconds to set up, and most people aren't thinking that far ahead when they point their camera and press the button.

        Face it, Photography is, when you get down to it, a highly technical practice, and you can automate it somewhat with smart cameras that can handle say 80% of the situations that 90% of people are likely to want to take pictures of. Fall outside those boundries, and you get situations like these.
    • Actually, switching the flash is often a reasonable strategy when photgraphing something that is well illuminated.

      Here is why, most meters will average across the whole frame and the thing you are photographing is usually occupying maybe 10 to 20% of the frame.

      Switching flash will normally set a fixed speed on 1/30th sec. This is usually enough for the illuminated bit of the photograph. Forget the flash itself, it is the fixed speed that helps. With negative film there is usually enough lattitude to get something off the negative. This is why flash photos of concerts often work.

      If they are filming on to negative film, they will need a fair amount of illumination (even with black helicopters). I wouldn't be suprised if the photographers don't actually get something (although a 30th is a bit slow for action and it is sure to blur).

      • If a scene is reasonably illuminated, you don't need the flash. The "fixed speed" as you call it won't help either to get something better than without flash.

        In photography, correct exposure is a factor of three elements: film speed (the ISO number), shutter speed (1/sec) and aperture (in f-numbers or mm).

        The camera, using the light meter, will try to get the scene to gray. Dumb point-n-shoots can only change the shutter speed, and I think for a limited range of values (most likely 1/60, 1/125, 1/250). The camera won't allow longer exposures because it is assumed that it is hand-held and longer exposures will result in bluriness.

        So anyway you look at it, shooting distant objects in the dark with a simple automatic camera is dumb, flash or no flash.
        • I think you have misunderstood me. Typically a metering system in a low end automatic camera like my Olympus has no spot facility. It will quite happily expose up to a second if it feels there is not enough light.

          When photographing a bright object against a dark background, the meter's tendancy to average the scene will tend to give unacceptably long exposures.

          Enabling flash is way of forcing the shutter speed to the lower end of hand-held performancethen it is up to the lens and film speed. Remember also that there is a lot of lattitude in print films as well, so effective a 400ASA film can be doubled to 800 ASA. This is enough for most purposes.

          Of course a good SLR with a bright lens and spot metering would be better, but this isn't necessarily what you can keep handy for opportunity shots.

    • I agree in premise, but most people don't know anything about their cameras. They point, they click.

      Cameras should be smart enough to detect long-range photography (most AF cameras have range-finders now anyway) and shut off the flash by default.

      Even I find myself using the flash on my camera by accident (did it on the highway once... that was BAD) because the camera resets itself every time you turn it off.

      I want smart cameras. I was digital cameras that can take a picture when I press the button, not 2 seconds after. Sigh.
      • My point was, cameras should NOT flash UNLESS specifically told to do so by the user. That would make sure the people that don't know how to use a camera would not cause such a big problem on accident.

        Hell, why doesn't Windows install with Telnet turned on and with a default Administrative password? It doesn't because it is just a good policy to have conservative default settings.
        • No.

          If cameras did not flash by default 80% of the people who bought them would not be able to take indoor pictures. That may sound fine to you, but it would mean that any camera put out that way would move off the shelves about as fast as a frozen slug.
          • You can say that all you want, but you have no proof to back it up...

            I believe that if cameras didn't flash by default, people that are taking indoor pictures would just damn well have to remember to turn the flash on.

            Besides that, with improvements in cameras and film developing, even low light pictures don't turn out very bad.

            • Re:Camera Flash (Score:2, Interesting)

              by joshsisk ( 161347 )
              When I worked at a photomat, it was very common to see disposables (the kind you have to activate the flash on) to have one severely under-exposed shot before each good one (or few good ones).

              People would usually forget to turn the flash on the first time.
            • I believe that if cameras didn't flash by default, people that are taking indoor pictures would just damn well have to remember to turn the flash on.

              You're missing the point. You act as if the entire camera industry has one guy that goes "hey, I know! We'll turn the flash off by default!"

              Try sitting in on a Cannon product development meeting and saying, "on this model, let's really juice up sales by making customers have to figure out the user interface in order to turn on the flash."

              The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you think people will be able to cope, camera manufacturers all make their cameras do the most generically useful thing by default. It may not be a nice outcome in terms of annoying flashes, but face it: that flash doesn't hurt the resulting picture in the average case, and it helps in the case of indoor photography. No one is going to step up to the plate to be the first to shut that off.

              Now, I'd be happy if the camera just remembered when you shut the flash off from power-off to power-on. That you might be able to squeak past as a design improvement....
              • "The new Cannon RZQX-50. The first of the cameras that can take pictures, through glass windows, out of the box."

                Or perhaps: "the first that won't get you kicked out of the (foot/base/basket)-ball game."

                I know everyone goes the way of making products for idiots (just look at cars that lock your doors, and turn on your headlights) but a product that does what the owner wants it to do would probably sell even more units. It seems like old, good features are completely removed by every manufacturer at the same time (or new, crappy features are added).

                I think everyone underestimates that as a selling point. Not having every feature, but rather, having features that do what you want, when you want. In other words, not screwing up.
    • Yeah, this reminds me of that commercial about some long-life battery, where it shows a whole football-sized stadium of people using flash cameras, and all but one stop working (becuase that one has such-and-such long-life battery). I kept thinking about how moronic that commercial was.

      I've also often seen people try to take flash pictures of things through glass, while taking the picture perpendicular to the plane of the glass.

      Somebody in this thread estimated 70%, but I think that person forgot about Sturgeon's Law [tuxedo.org].

    • With that many agents running around, don't you think neuralyzation happens often? OH wait - wrong movie ...
    • At the Great Pyramids, in Egypt, during the night show, countless numbers of people were taking photos with their flashes on (I mean HUNDREDS of flashes in the course of a few minutes). This was in a viewing area that was probably a mile away, and every time a flash went off, all you could see was the dust right in front of your face. It was glaringly obvious that the pictures wouldn't come out, but everyone still did it.

      And in St. Peter's Cathedral, people would stand at the entrance and try to get a flash picture of the whole interior. I turned off my flash and got a gorgeous photo (holding my camera rock still). Then I turned the flash on the see what everyone else was gonna get (out of curiosity). Pure gray washed out haze.

      What amazes me is that most of these people will probably never learn on their own, even when they get their ruined pictures back.

  • New Oracle? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shanep ( 68243 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:29AM (#3840454) Homepage
    Anyone heard news that there will be a new actress to play the Oracle?

    I was in the National Geographic shop in Darling Harbour Sydney, browsing, when a lady with a Yankee accent came in. The guy behind the desk asked her where she was from, if she was a tourist, etc, etc.

    She claimed that she was working on a new movie, the guy behind the counter asked which, she replied The Matrix. The guy and the girl behind the counter were impressed, they asked what she had to do with it and she said she plays the role of the Oracle, since the actress who played the Oracle in the first movie has passed away.

    Can anyone confirm that the origial Oracle actress has passed on?

    Damn, she was uber cool.

  • I always thought it was a test for software DVD players... ;)

  • Realistic? (Score:3, Funny)

    by roalt ( 534265 ) <slashdot DOT org AT roalt DOT com> on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:46AM (#3840477) Homepage Journal
    Mr Director, I think it would be quite unrealistic in a film if a helicopter flew 10 meters over your head in a city like Sydney and nobody would take pictures...

  • Heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by ShooterNeo ( 555040 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:07AM (#3840512)
    A line from the upcoming movie : Neo : "Whoa....check out all those flashes" Morpheus : "Concentrate on the task at hand; they are merely glitches in the Matrix caused by our presense in this place"

  • Yay ! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wow .. this is all very exciting.

    The building I work in is on the corner of Martin Place and Castlereagh streets.

    I walk along there everyday !

    Where they found space to land a goddamn helicopter is beyond me ... they must have swept all the homeless guys out of the way beforehand.

  • Photo of the 'copter (Score:2, Informative)

    by rob.sharp ( 215152 )
    My friend was out and about with his shiny new camera, and took a piccy of the 'copter as it was being filmed... Not bad quality, but would have liked to get more! Don't wanna slashdot my own server, so check out the pictures [lycos.co.uk] to have a peek... Rob.

  • Photo (With Flash) (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For those that couldn't make it to the set ... here's a photo of the action.

    Action Shot [utoronto.ca]
  • here's a good line: "...for the multi-million dollar sequels to the Hollywood sci-fi film The Matrix."
    Is anyone besides me unimpressed? A million dollar budject is completely bare bones as far as movie making goes.

  • At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film

    I always thought Matrix and the sequels were directed by BOTH Kowalsky Bros....

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close