The Art Of The Matrix 159
| The Art of the Matrix | |
| author | Larry & Andy Wachowski, Steve Skroce, Tani Kunitake, Geof Darrow, Warren Manser, Collin Grant, Phil Oosterhouse |
| pages | 488 |
| publisher | Newmarket Press |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Pseudonym |
| ISBN | 1-55704-405-8 |
| summary | Not your average (fluffy) "book of the film," this one gets deep into the minds of the makers. |
When we think of sci-fi films and the people who make them, we usually think of actors, directors, screenwriters and visual effects TDs. We rarely think of production artists, concept artists and storyboarders. But modern sci-fi films owe a lot to these people: Tight visual effects budgets (no matter how high, they're always tight) and armies of people who need to be organised mean that the planning must be meticulous, right down to the last detail.
Maurice Zuberano, production illustrator and art director for such films as Dick Tracy, has called the storyboard the "diary of the film." It's the private record of the visualisation process, and one of the reasons why you generally won't find them intact after the film is completed. Steven D. Katz, in his classic textbook on film direction, even suggested the storyboard is often "the evidence that the look of the film was the work of someone other than the director."
The storyboards and concept art for The Matrix needed to see the light of day, and only by flicking through this book can you fully appreciate why. The first and largest section of this book contains the boards and concept art for most of the key scenes in the film. The black and white boards by Steve Skroce read like a comic book without the words (Skroce used to be a comic illustrator for Marvel and the brothers Wachowski used to be writers) and truly stand out on their own. The colour boards by Tani Kunitake and Collin Grant cover several of the key sequences (the initial Layafette scenes, the Power Plant, the History Program and the final Sentinel Attack). The artwork is interspersed with comments by the artists on specific characters' shots, how they were developed (usually with the Wachowskis getting them to tweak and re-tweak until it was exactly what they had in mind) and differences between what was boarded and what was finally shot, which serious fans will certainly appreciate.
As an example, from the Government Lobby scene, Skroce notes:
Trinity was always a PVC chick. In the storyboards, Neo was a bit more army fatigues; he's definitely got more fashion sense in the film, looks cooler. The trench coats and sunglasses were always Larry and Andy's idea. Especially in this scene, the glasses were there to look cool, but also as a safety consideration for the actors in the midst of all this debris. (p 142)
After the boards are some of the conceptual designs by Geof Darrow. Most of the pages are fold-out, in order to give you a better idea of the detail of these images. Darrow also supplied comments on how the sets developed since these initial drawings. A special bonus is a mech-like battle suit which didn't make it into the first film, but may turn up in one of the sequels.
Following the concept art is the shooting script, as written by Larry & Andy Wachowski. It's not exactly what was in the theatrical release (some parts were changed during the ADR and editing phases). If you're used to reading screenplays, you know how dry they often are. Not this one. The Wachowskis know how to paint a picture with just a few well-chosen words, the sort of prose that you would normally find in a well-crafted novel. To give you a taste, here's an excerpt from scene 30, when Neo is released from the power plant:
He is standing in an oval capsule of clear alloy filled with red gelatin, the surface of which has solidified like curdled milk. The IVs in his arms are plugged into outlets that appear to be grafted to his flesh.
He feels the weight of another cable and reaches to the back of his head where he finds an enormous coaxial plugged and locked into the base of his skull. He tries to pull it out but it would be easier to pull off a finger.
To either side he sees the other tube-shaped pods filled with red gelatin; beneath the wax-like surface, pale and motionless, he sees other human beings.
Fanning out in a circle, there are more. All connected to a center core, each capsule like a red, dimly glowing petal attached to a black metal stem.
Above him, level after level, the stem rises seemingly forever. He moves to the foot of the capsule and looks out. The image assaults his mind.
Towers of glowing petals spiral up to incomprehensible heights, disappearing down into a dim murk like an underwater abyss.
(pp 304-5)
Included after the screenplay are notes on production by Phil Oosterhouse (assistant to the directors) and some parts cut from the script during pre-production, in both screenplay and storyboard form. The notes provide some great anecdotes from filming. As for the cut scenes, there are some extremely interesting ideas in there, which I won't spoil for you. You'll just have to look for yourself.
Finally, there are some miscellaneous bits and pieces to fill up the end of the book. The full credits, the acceptance speeches from the 2000 Academy Awards(R), key art (including theatrical posters) and stills from the film interspersed with the corresponding boards to show how faithfully the film emulated their comic book style.
This book is a must for any serious Matrix fan, and extremely valuable for those interested in how movies get their look. You won't find anything else quite like it, and it will remain a treasured addition to your coffee table for decades to come.
My one quibble is that I would have preferred to have the complete storyboards so I could enjoy The Matrix as a comic book, rather than just having the key scenes. However, I understand why they did it this way. Storyboards of long conversations without the dialogue written in probably aren't very interesting to look at.
I'll leave the final word to William Gibson, who writes in the the afterward:
Keanu's Neo is my favorite-ever science fiction hero, absolutely.
You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
Stupid (Score:1)
Re:What's the fuss about this move?! (Score:1)
In order to like this book... (Score:2)
what is the matrix? (Score:2)
well, quite simply, this:
Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:4)
The thing about this is that ignorance is bliss. Do we really want the unwashed masses, the moronic corporate drones and idiotic menial workers, to be introduced to these issues? Our entire society depends upon everyone being dead and asleep, unaware of wider issues while those of us who are curious and alive to the world can run things and dictate reality for everyone else.
So, it is irresponsible to wake these people up in this way. We should be confirming their prejudices, and making them believe that their narrow viewpoints and limited shortsighted worldviews are correct.
We should give them bread and circusses, not wake them up to the truth like this. Where ignoarance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise, and it is better for the masses if they exist in joyful prejudiced ignoarance. I think that the matrix should never have been released for this reason.
Re:I dunno (Score:1)
Isn't there a limit on "spoilers"? (Score:4)
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Hell has frozen over (Score:1)
Meaning of the Matrix -- (Score:2)
--
I have a clue what he's talking about. (Score:2)
You claim to have some philosophy education. Well, I do to. That is my primary field of study. What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis, which is really just a rehash of Descartes "Deceptive Demon". That is an example used to explain why skeptics are skeptics. If you can give a good explanation as to why that hypothesis is not a good one, please let me know, because I know a lot of philosophical skeptics who would really like to hear it.
We aren't (or at least I in this comment [slashdot.org] the other day wasn't) saying that these philosophical questions (Descartes's deceptive demon, the brain in a vat, solipsism, or the mind/body problem in general) aren't interesting, only that The Matrix did a poor job of exploring them and that it doesn't deserve the level of praise that it has received from people like Jon Katz who don't know better than to think that these are original concepts. To quote my favorite sentence from my own comment, they "...find the movie's philosophical questions provocative because [they are] encountering them for the first time, whereas those who have already spent any time pondering those ideas know that they are fascinating and all, but don't give this movie so much of the credit for them, especially given how badly it fumbled them. I think we're mainly annoyed by this because we're disappointed that the movie took a concept that could have been developed into something much more interesting and then failed to take it anywhere new.
Kope called the storyline "...fresh out of a bad philosophy 101 class". I'd agree, except that "101" implies an upper-division course, whereas we went deeper into the mind/body problem in the "Introduction to Philosophy" that I took in a summer program while still in high school, and even more so in a "Philosophy 39" Freshman seminar (though I guess not all such seminars are with John Searle...) I guess you answered your own question when you said "What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis...". I don't claim that those undergrad courses cover the questions exhaustively -- they are low-level, introductory things and of course the field gets much more interesting at the higher levels. However, the movie doesn't contain anything that wasn't in those beginner courses, which is exactly what he said.
David Gould
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
We need a way to change the score of this post to (Score 3: I live in a box)
Science fiction has always been about looking ahead, theorizing, and mainly, entertainment. It's fiction. It's not real. Take the blue pill and it'll all go away.
Science fiction had Airplanes, men in space, on the moon, in a spacestation, meeting new life forms....decades (and in some cases, centruies) before science actually got us there. In fact, you could consider Science Fiction the impetus for many of these progresses we have made.
If you thing our society depends on us living in a box, then you're all set. If you don't like this, take the red pill, get up, and do something about it. Vote for people who "Get It" (like Orrin Hatch, or people who think like our new FCC head). Don't put Dumbaya in office, hell, he won't even use Email (probably because he's afraid his soul will turn black from being on the internet or some other crap like that, forget the FIOA).
Lafeyette scene? (Score:1)
I've seen it a bunch of times, own the VHS, downloaded the DIV:), and don't recall a Lafayette scene.
Do they mean the Nebechadnezzer? Maybe hte name changed during production to have more biblical allusions.
Re:This is why Science fiction is ghettoized (Score:1)
Re:Army Fatigues (Score:2)
Keanu: "You need muscles? hang on"
::grunt, groan, ERRRRRrRRRArrrrrRr POP!::
Keanu: "big enough?"
movie director guy: "whoa, dude"
Keanu: "nice line, can I use that?"
heh
---------------------------------------
The art of flying is throwing yourself at the ground...
Re:Lafeyette scene? (Score:1)
What's next? (Score:1)
I find Sandra Bullock more attractive (Score:1)
and the elevator scene was better in Speed.
But I really think the fight scenes were better in the MAtrix.
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Lemme guess... You took the blue pill? ^_^
Reality is a lonely place without other people to enjoy it.
-W-
"Is it all journey, or is there landfall?"
What's the fuss about this move?! (Score:3)
The actors are not all that good, with the exception of Fishburne and Pantoliano who where passible. The direction isn't really all that fascinating. And the storyline is fresh out of a bad philosophy 101 class.
Maybe it's becuase I've got some education in philosophy and didn't find the story all that deep. Maybe it's becuase I'm a Hong Kong action film buff and have seen all the special effects before. But I just don't get what the fuss was about. Sure, Carrie-Anne Moss was hot and fun to look at, and the sound-track and sound editing where pretty damn good (particularly during the famous scene of Neo and Trinity battling it out, but sound tracks and hot babes don't make a movie in my book.
So what is it about this movie that makes everyone all excited?
On the flip side, I do think that a book showing how a very visual movie is storyboarded and moves from concept to production is a cool thing. I went and saw the travelling Star Wars museum display that included a lot of the concept art for the first 3 films. That was a very cool experience and I can certainly see why a fan would want that in a quality coffee table book. It is very interesting to see the changes that occure from concept to production, and to learn some of the reasons behind those changes.
Re:speak for yourself (Score:2)
Sure you do. Don't watch the 'making of' on TV, don't watch the documentary, don't read the novelization, don't buy the action figure, don't buy the limited edition storyboard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do anything you don't want. Stop blaming other people for your inability to control yourself.
Re:This is why Science fiction is ghettoized (Score:1)
Re:Why do all geeks worship the Matrix so? (Score:1)
Re:speak for yourself (Score:2)
Relax, no danger here (Score:2)
Cute troll, but sheesh! What makes you think a big-budget Hollywood production can help but be "bread and circuses"?
While I'm all for a general raising of consciousness and aliveness to the world, I don't think anyone needs to worry about the revolutionary potential of The Matrix. Those who are tuned in to philosophical issues will find them, those who are not will be happy with the big explosions and with drooling at Trinity.
(And just for fun, I'll point out that there's nothing solipsist about The Matrix. Neo is living in an illusion, but he's hardly the only one there. I can make a stronger case for The Matrix being a Christian allegory, with Neo of course the Christ-figure. This is Holy Week, if you don't get it, try making it to an Easter service this Sunday and do some research.)
Re:Old (Score:2)
speak for yourself (Score:5)
Sure we do. We don't have a choice any more. Once upon a time you could watch a movie, and then watch it again six months later on video if it was any good. These days, you have to watch the 'making of' on television, an ad masquerading as a documentary before the film's released. Then you read the shitty novelisation[0]. Then you watch the movie. Then you buy the action figures. Then you get the limited edition storyboards, featuring unused concepts!
I flicked through this book; I'm a fan both of the film and of Geoff Darrow (anyone not read Hard Boiled, written by Frank Miller? Sheer excellence), but I have no desire to spend money on a book I'd flick through once.
Sorry to go off like that. Backroom boys do deserve some credit, and books like this are a way of giving them that credit. But that's only a secondary objective. Ever since the Star Trek Blueprints to a Ship that Appeared in an Episode Once Volume VII, these sorts of items have been used as another item of merchandise, instead of supplementary material on the DVD.
[0]Unless the film is the Abyss, and the novelistion is by Orson Scott Card, of course.
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
I think it was "Cherry 2000 [imdb.com]"
;)
I like your list except for Sphere.
And while you are including B-Movies.. add Nemisis [imdb.com]!
Sorry I'm a sucker for Pyun [imdb.com].
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Re:This is why Science fiction is ghettoized (Score:1)
Re:NOOOOOOO!!! (Score:1)
Re:Isn't there a limit on "spoilers"? (Score:2)
Hope I didn't ruin Citizen Kane for any on you.
Where to get it (Score:1)
This is where to get it:
The Art of the Matrix [pricegrabber.com]
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:1)
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:1)
Knowledge is power.
Makes us who has taken the red pill all the more powerfull. Information longs to be free, but if someone doesn't want to see the truth
PK Dick (Score:2)
Re:Solipsism! [classic academia joke] (Score:4)
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Informative.. sheesh.
Its a movie, not a documentary.
Re:you have no clue what you are talking about. (Score:2)
One of the things that attracted me to programming was that programs have much fewer limitations that the real world does (no pesky gravity, no restrictions about two objects occupying the same space...). While it's obvious that reality and programming are separate universes, I've always wondered in the back of my mind about what the possibilities would be if the two were combined. I didn't even realize I'd been subconsciously thinking about this until I saw The Matrix articulate it so well, and did it in a way that expressed that same feeling to non-techies who have no idea what hex editing or binary patching are.
--
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:1)
Re:This is why Science fiction is ghettoized (Score:4)
This has already happened, to an extent. Most of the prime time shows on the Sci-fi channel are nothing more than soap operas with aliens. I can divide my friends and co-workers into 2 camps: those who watch 'Sex and the City' and those who watch 'Farscape'. True mind-expanding sci-fi, though, which I guess Matrix would have to fall under, is scarce - but how many people who saw it enjoyed it on that philosophical level? "Carrie is hot!!!" Duh. You can popularize sci-fi all you want, but you can't ever make people get it. Simply exposing people to brilliance doesn't make them enlightened. You have nothing to worry about, geeky sweetie: I think most folks would take the blue pill.
"Smear'd with gumms of glutenous heat, I touch..." - Comus, John Milton
Re:This is why Science fiction is ghettoized (Score:1)
Second, is Gravity's Rainbow SF? That's the first I've heard of it. My wife, who has been trying to read it for about six months, says that it could be considered SF, but then you would also include Catch-22 and all sorts of W.S. Burrows as SF.
Well, and that shows that the new wave SF was not totally dead. Perhaps you are forgetting the Phillip Jose Farmer's, or David Bryn's of the genre. While they employ 'Space Opera' at times, they also try to introduce radical new ideas, and don't show the world as a right wing capitalist paradise either.
(Should I mention Ursala LeGuin? And more?)
Oy, the M.I. Complex -Made- Rendesvous with Rama beat Gravity's Rainbow? Now that's Science Fiction.)
rbb
Re:I dunno (Score:1)
Reader Pseudonym contributed this review of the visually dense tome The Art of the Matrix.
Article posted by Tim mentions that reader Pseudonym contributed a review. Clear enough.
I spent an hour with this coffee-table-size book a few weeks ago, and even though I'm not a big fan of the film itself, the book made me appreciate it a lot more
Who is saying this? Tim or Pseudo? Since there is no quotation, the "I" would make most readers think this is Timothy's viewpoint since
Re:the stuff under the block of book information (Score:1)
Re:A Summary: (Score:1)
Of course. But I figured I should declare my potential conflict of interest anyway.
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
"Pseudonym" isn't my real name, either.
Matrix 2 (Score:2)
Not yet. :-)
My employers supplied some of the rendering software used by one of the effects houses on Matrix, and we'll be doing the same for Matrix 2 and 3. (I'm supplying a shader compiler which will most likely be used too.)
In the highly unlikely event that I find out anything you'd be interested in (I may find out what local illumination model on the buildings in Zion, but who cares, right?) and I'm actually allowed to say it, I'll attempt to fill you in. No promises, though. The NDAs are pretty tight in this business.
Re:speak for yourself (Score:2)
Actually, I like those. Any film with a "making of" documentary tends to be of such poor quality that all the good bits are in the documentary, so you don't have to see the film.
Re:Stunning special effects... (Score:2)
As Mick Molloy once pointed out, it was just like the mechanical Sam Neill in Jurassic Park. You could almost think it was lifelike...
Re:Old (Score:2)
Also, most of the reviewers are just plain old readers, like yours truly. Plus I'm in a country that didn't get it delivered until a few months ago. Oh, and the review sat in the /. queue for over a month. (I'm pretty sure that timothy spaces them out so we get about one book review a week instead of "as they come".)
So the moral of the story is: don't expect /. book reviews to be "timely".
Re:I dunno (Score:2)
And think to yourself: If Pseudonym did not like the film, would he have bought the book?
Re:A Summary: (Score:2)
For the record, I have no financial interest in the book, and my employers got paid a flat fee for the rendering software they provided for the film.
Actually... (Score:2)
Yes they did. I submitted the link along with the review.
However, ThinkGeek now has a link back to the review. Work that one out, conspiracy theorists...
Re:GAP ad was completely different (Score:2)
Actually, it's much harder. It'd be easy (or at least "straightforward") if the cameras fired at exactly the right time, but in practice, because the shutter is mechanical, there is an element of randomness. All this needs to be corrected... manually. When it's a still (or when you're faking a little motion like in Lost in Space) you don't notice the jitter as much, but when it's smooth slow motion, you really notice it.
Re:What's the fuss about this move?! (Score:1)
I have watched it I-don't-know-how-many times
and it never ceases to amaze me what an awesomely cool movie The Matrix is.
So like, dood, get a life. (go get inserted back into the matrix as a lawyer or something :)
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:1)
The brain tends to be more of a conceptual, artistic machine than a machine built for logic accuracy and speed. A CPU could ray trace a 3D scene, going through millions of complex math problems in minutes with extreme accuracy, yet the human would have little chance of attempting this with accuracy. On the flip side, the human could instantly recognise the rendered scene and make conclusions from it, but to the electrical computer, this would be sheer guesswork thanks to some some humans program, which manages to slow that computer right down to achieve laughable recognition from the emotionless machine.
Try to remember a picture from your family photo album that you have'nt seen in a long while, but feel that you know well... describe it to yourself in the greatest detail you feel you can, and then go and look at it. You possibly remembered it seemingly in detail right? But not picture perfect. You remembered objects, characters and their colours in the photo, as concepts but not perfectly? You might have got one of the characters wrong and did'nt notice the small bottle top on the ground off in the background for example which was of little interest anyway, but the computer scan of it held them true to shape and colour, even if they are just 3 byte pixels.
The real power is the effective combination of man and machine. (Go Unix!)
I agree that the brain is the most intelligent tool in existence, but only the most advanced for certain applications. Interface a human brain to an F117 stealth bomber, in place of it's stabilization computer and then watch it crash immediately after take off and then try to get some sympathy from that flight computer on the ground which was programmed to "see".
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:1)
"A slave is still a slave, even if he is a happy slave"
-----
Re:Best Slacker Flick (Score:1)
I'm not sure we saw the same movie...
Personally, I thought Laurence Fishburn was fabulous, and Carriane Moss was - in leather.
I've seen a lot of movies, but this is the only one I've seen where reality exists within the confines of a computer simulation, enslaving the human race for use by machines. Now before I get a reply pointing out seven movies made in the 1960's that no one who's getting laid has ever heard of, let me stress the point that the Matrix plot is certainly not "well-worn ground."
Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking
I think the whole point of the movie was that Neo was able to trancend the Matrix, to manipulate it as he saw fit. He mentally "hacked" the Matrix, so to speak.
Neo is handed a magic pill.
You are forgetting the entire sequence regarding the rescue of Morpheus. Neo only became the "One" after realizing his destiny, not swallowing a pill.
The answer is: War Games.
War Games got my vote, too.
The biggest mistake you've made, however, is to say that the Matrix was "eye candy with no point." That couldn't be further from the truth. The Matrix made a statement about our society that few grasp.
The next time you are plopped on the couch watching Friends, you should pay attention to the commercials. Like any other Generation X'er, raised by TV and not by parents, I've learned to unconciously tune out the commercials - I don't even notice them anymore. But the message they send is a perfect indicator of our society.
We consume, consume, consume. And to what end? To make our government and Sam Walton richer. Think about the average American's life - you work your whole life, constantly consume new things in a vain attempt at happiness (if only I could afford the Super Jumbo 200-inch TV, then I'd be happy), and then die in pretty much the same financial situation as in which were were born.
A lot of people in this country are a slave to the system. That was the "point", IMHO.
I dunno (Score:1)
Matrix == Gnosticism (Score:1)
Fifth, and my big point, the slashdot crowd seems to think they know a whole bunch about philosophy -- somthing I can't can't confirm or deny b/c I don't think I know all that much about philosophy. However, I do know about world religion. I think the strongest reason the movie was strong was it evangelized a belief system that peopel have with out knowing the name for it. The name, of course, being Gnosticism. This is a belief system that many technology types tend to act in IMHO. Although it may not resemble the early christian heresy in modern times, much of the core system is still there. In my viewing of the movie, it is undeiable that the Wachowski brothers were fully aware of this and ment to communicate this. For those familiar, doesn't it make sense that the movie can be devided in to the following acts: a call, a new adam, a last supper, an oracle (tranfiguration in the garden), a passion & decent, and of course a resurection. Why would they chose trinity as a chareter name? morpheous, the god of dreams? the opening baptism sceens at the "corner of wells & lake"?! The ship is call the "Nebuchadnezzar"; interesting. How about this, the ship's model number is mark 3, no 11, ie mark 3:11. Currious, eh? I heard there the script was rewritten twenty times. Details such as the above to accidently show up with that many revisions.
It's clear to me this is what they intended to say, and their story met a very willing world. The Matrix isn't philosophy; it's a modern and effective retelling of the old religion Gnosticism.
Not a big fan? (Score:1)
ÕÕ
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:1)
ÕÕ
Re:It's only shadows and light (Score:2)
As far as what goes a movie that'll move people, even today, it's a combination of both the technical trickery and the script/actors/director.
Citizen Kane, for example, used some pretty funky camera work to set the mood in certain scenes, yet those same scenes would've not had any impact if the dialogue wasn't damn near perfect.
Saving Private Ryan: the opening invasion scene is extremely powerful - it does move you. But for all it's technical brilliance, I found it to be less moving than the simple scene of the old man falling to pieces in the cemetary.
The Matrix, unfortunately, relied on the FX-heavy scenes to move the audience (IMO). The only scenes that really made an impression on me (and gave me a craving for steak :)) that didn't involve FX was when Cypher was talking to the agent about getting reinserted, and when the agent made his "I hate humanity" speech to the drugged up Morpheus.
I suppose that's why, in the end, I liked the movie, a lot, but walked away from it feeling kind of empty - and the main reason I've watched it again later is the same as why I watched Independence Day a bunch of times: funky special effects.
---
Re:Check out SPEED (Score:2)
---
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:3)
Agreed - you would wind up with a net loss in energy if you tried that sort of system. Now, if the explanation had been that they use humans as processors (since the brain is still the most advanced computer in existence, even in the age of AI), I think it would've been a lot easier to swallow for a lot of people who actually took a second or two to think about it.
---
Best Slacker Flick (Score:2)
This item and the 'best hacker flick' poll made me wonder, why is The Matrix such a big deal to some people? It was a good movie--the acting STANK, the special effects were excellent, the plot was well-worn ground, the point was...well, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt and just say it was nice eye candy with no point.
So how does a film with no hacking get voted best hacker flick? (Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking, any more than a paper MCSE is a sys admin. Yes, I'm comparing everyone who voted for The Matrix as a hacker flick to a paper MCSE. The answer is: War Games. (credit given for Tron and Real Genius))
My conclusion: The Matrix is the best SLACKER flick. The whole Neo story line is basically, why do you stay up all night downloading pr0n and mp3z? Why can't you come to work on time and do your job? (Geeks know if you know your shit and get the job done, no one hassles you about what time you come in.) No, it's not because you're a loser; it's because you're the savior of mankind!
Neo is a geek in the pejorative sense. He's a loser. And on day he finds someone to tell him he is 'The One.' In War Games, Tron, heck, even The Net, you see people actually considering an issue, going through a thought process to find a solution, aka hacking. Neo is handed a magic pill. That's not hacking, it's slacking.
Ultimate geek coffee table book, etc (Score:2)
Also, check out a lot of cool related comic art, at the official Matrix site [whatisthematrix.com]. And check out their page for the book, because its funny to read William Gibson's complimentary quote, then think to yourself: "Man, Johnny Mnemonic, Matrix, both sci-fi, both Keanu, and you know Gibson is feeling like he seriously got the shaft." (Even know, the thoughts return..."I've got...to get on...the Net!"... So cold...)
Re:GAP ad was completely different (Score:2)
--
Solipsism! [classic academia joke] (Score:4)
[joke begins]A professor is teaching a philosophy course, and he explains to his class solopism, the theroy that reality is a creation in ones mind. After the lecture, several students rush up and introduce themselves to the professor and explain that the theroy was really intune with how they felt and its really opened their minds and they just wanted to tell him in person how the felt about his lecture ... to this the professor replies "Thats wonderfull, so rarely does one solipsist meet another."
Software (Score:3)
All You Zombies (Score:2)
Rich
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:2)
I can only think of two excuses for this totally stupid scenario:
- It's a clue to the subsequent sequels that even that explanation is just made up, like everything in the Matrix is.
- Product placement for Duracell.
My money is on 2.An excellent Matrix 2 rumor site (Score:2)
There's a really great Matrix 2 rumor site here [pointlesswasteoftime.com]. The leaked script pages are off-the-hook.
By the way, if you have time you should check out the rest of PointlessWasteOfTime.com [pointlesswasteoftime.com]
-Grant
(Yeah, this is similar to another post on this story. The other one is a reply in a thread, so probably no one will see it, so I posted it again as this new thread. Sue me.)
---
YOU have no clue what you are talking about. (Score:3)
Re:What's the fuss about this move?! (Score:2)
PS: if you wanted to beat it down, you should have just said they ripped of the story from the Christian Bible... OH WAIT! that describes Star Wars too...
Hell, that describes many of the major works of science fiction and fanasy in existance, and no small part of more mainstream litereature. Examples, just off the Top of my head, include: The Lord of the Rings, The Cronicles of Narnia, The Foundation, The Aurthurean Legends, The cycles of Finn MacCool (an ancient Irish cycle), Braveheart, even Titanic. The concepts of death and rebirth, sacrifice bringing new life, etc. are among the oldest literary archtypes. The idea of the "forever hero" has been analysed to death by students of literature, socialology, comparitive religions, and virtually every other social science out there, but it continues to compell us despite itself. The Christian Bible "stole" the story from the Mithric cults of Rome, who "stole" from the rites of Isis and Osirus, which probably "stole" from some even earlier and unremembered cult. Not that I am disagreeing with you... the story is borrowed, but it is borrowed from one of the most long standing traditions in literature.
you have no clue what you are talking about. (Score:4)
Where you said that you have seen all the special effects before, you really showed your ignorance. If you cannot differentiate between the special effects in HK action flicks that preceded the Matrix, and the Matrix, you don't know what to look for.
You claim to have some philosophy education. Well, I do to. That is my primary field of study. What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis, which is really just a rehash of Descartes "Deceptive Demon". That is an example used to explain why skeptics are skeptics. If you can give a good explanation as to why that hypothesis is not a good one, please let me know, because I know a lot of philosophical skeptics who would really like to hear it.
The movie is an action flick with Science Fiction as its plot generator. That is it. It is a relatively simple idea (hence the broad appeal) that was implemented well, and made to be entertaining.
To answer your primary question, I think most people were excited about the idea of an interesting story, acted out by quite a few fresh faces, with never-before-seen special effects.
Finally, I must say that a story doesn't have to be philosophically deep to be meaningful. The American Revolution was about not wanting to pay taxes on paper and tea, among other things of that sort, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was about not wanting big freaking missiles pointed at us. These are not particulary deep (read "convoluted") stories, but they are important issues. They were to the people at the time, and they are today. Take that into consideration the next time you criticize something because you aren't the only one who can understand it.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Not for Nothing... (Score:2)
I don't know, Hollywood just makes me feel used in general.
wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that PoS?! (Score:3)
The Matrix was a movie, not a religious text. I thought it was OK, but not the deeply moving experience some people make it out to be, and surely there are a lot of people who feel the same way.
Keanu Reeves is a bad actor. He may be a nice guy, a good friend, or an excellent lover (if you're of whatever sex he actually prefers, a point on which I have no information nor want any). He was thankfully saved from much acting by the quite-good special effects in The Matrix though, unlike in Much Ado About Nothing. I was afraid he might catch on fire whenever he was near torches in that one, but perhaps the wood he's carved from is still too green to really catch.
Bladerunner -- that's a good movie. Stack that against the Matrix any time. (On the other hand, The Matrix, like I said, is by no means the worst KR film -- that distinction would have to go to The Replacements (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0191397), which is also by the way the worst movie that Gene Hackman ever made.)
There probably is a whole subset of viewers who would have liked the Matrix a lot more (maybe even been "fans" to satisfy your need for Full Official Geek Conformance) if the acting had been as good as the effects, and if the whole "brain in a jar" idea was somewhat more novel. The Matrix does a good job of extending and stylizing that old thought experiment, but dammit it's just a classic bull-session topic, ok?!
On the other hand, perhaps you were joking, ironically pointing out preemptively that there really *are* people who seem to take it upon themselves to make sure that everyone thinks "correctly" about art / music / software / books / clothing / politics. In which case, I apologize for misinterpreting. But the thought police are out in force, and annoying, so now I've gone off.
"What? You mean you don't make a point of showing off how you worship caffiene? What kind of a Geek *are* you?!" "Here, wear this shirt, it has a cool formula on the back, and we all have one. This way you won't be a conformist like the jocks over there. Oh, and where's your trenchcoat?"
simon
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:2)
The thing is, the creators of The Matrix did not really set out to do sci-fi. They wanted to do a comic-book style superhero series, with lots of wire-fu for the fighting. The first of three films to be an "origin" story, and setting everything in a computer-game world makes the wire-fu credible.
I think the effect of the helicopter sending ripples through the glass of a skyscraper as Trinity crashes into the opposite window is 3 seconds of film that earned the price of admission right there... certainly a better-looking effect than anything Lucas's CGI team was able to come up with.
All that said, the story for The Matrix is pretty silly, filled with holes and bad ideas, and stupid moments like when the "oracle" turns out to be an elderly, matronly, black lady living in a slum who says "not what you expected, is it" when she was excactly what we expected.
The one point where I disagree is where you say that KR is not a bad actor, but a limited one. He is a horrible actor! he can say "woah" with a dumbfounded look fairly well, but in every scene he has ever had where he actually needs to say more than one line, he stinks up the whole picture.
His stardom began with "Bill and Ted's Excelent Adventure", when he was an idiot 20-something who utterly failed to portray an idiot teenager with any degree of believabilty. Things went downhill from there. Films like "Much Ado" and "Dracula" would grind to a halt every time Keanu opened his mouth.
The one thing that saved him is action films. We are so used to seeing action films that star people who speak little or no English that a bad actor who overannounciates everything seems pretty good by comparison. Keanu can chug right along making action flick like Speed and The Matrix, and it will never really matter that he can't act.
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:2)
The thing is, the creators of The Matrix did not really set out to do sci-fi. They wanted to do a comic-book style superhero series, with lots of wire-fu for the fighting. The first of three films to be an "origin" story, and setting everything in a computer-game world makes the wire-fu credible.
I think the effect of the helicopter sending ripples through the glass of a skyscraper as Trinity crashes into the opposite window is 3 seconds of film that earned the price of admission right there... certainly a better-looking effect than anything Lucas's CGI team was able to come up with.
All that said, the story for The Matrix is pretty silly, filled with holes and bad ideas, and stupid moments like when the "oracle" turns out to be an elderly, matronly, black lady living in a slum who says "not what you expected, is it" when she was excactly what we expected.
The one point where I disagree is where you say that KR is not a bad actor, but a limited one. He is a horrible actor! he can say "woah" with a dumbfounded look fairly well, but in every scene he has ever had where he actually needs to say more than one line, he stinks up the whole picture.
His stardom began with "Bill and Ted's Excelent Adventure", when he was an idiot 20-something who utterly failed to portray an idiot teenager with any degree of believabilty. Things went downhill from there. Films like "Much Ado" and "Dracula" would grind to a halt every time Keanu opened his mouth.
The one thing that saved him is action films. We are so used to seeing action films that star people who speak little or no English that a bad actor who overannounciates everything seems pretty good by comparison. Keanu can chug right along making action flicks like Speed and The Matrix, and it will never really matter that he can't act.
Re:GAP ad was completely different (Score:2)
2. The Gap ad (and the beer ad) both came out before "Lost in Space".
IIRC, the beer ad was the first time it was ever used (commercialy anyway... the concept was worked out first, then shopped around to ad producers and film-makers), and it was followed shortly afterwards by a the Gap swing-dancing ad, which integrated the wrap-around with regular motion cameras.
Later Lost in Space used it, but found that when they used it on motionless people, it looked like the camera was panning around a bunch of maniquens, so they added a tiny ammount of motion so you would know it was still the actors.
By the way, if you are thinking of renting Lost in Space to see this early version of the effect in action, don't bother... it's a shitty movie.
Re:what is the matrix? (Score:2)
Well done, AC. Funny stuff. Posts like that are the reason I still read at 0. I hope you get modded way up.
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Some examples of really well-done science fiction in films include "2001", "Dark City", "Pi", "Dune", "Brazil", "Metropolis", "Sphere", "Terminator", hell, even "Cherry 3000"... dozens more, that's just what came to mind in the few seconds it took me to write this.
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Same goes for The Matrix. The Matrix is fun to watch. Not good science fiction, really, but good film-making.
Damn, some people can be touchy. I dare to mention that The Matrix is really more of a wire-fu fantasy than science fiction, and people immediately assume that I'm part of the army of critics who are proud of how much they hated it. Let me clarify (a lot, so it might sink in): I liked The Matrix. I liked it. That means I enjoyed it. I thought it was a good movie.
Next time, respond to what I said, not to what you think might have been my motivation.
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Apparently not the machines, either, because their "new energy source" (biological heat and electricity) was really just another mechanism for converting solar power.
Fuck, who knows if they even had a stupid thing like PID in the first place?
Obviously, I was not implying that they must have been using a *nix box, but if it is a computer network, they would be pretty shortsighted to build one in which they could not monitor network traffic... and the story established that disconnecting somebody killed them, so trace the traffic, kill the connection, and you got one more dead rebel. Cause they needed to get into the "oracle's" mainframe and all the other networks were down.
Whatever. The fact is that they established that they had another interface choice available (the console) which was actually judged by some characters as being superior, and operations via console don't carry the risk of an agent killing you, so why use a potentially lethal interface when you can reach the "oracle" or whatever from behind a nice safe monitor.
We also know that they had the ability to program artificial avitars (like "the woman in the red dress"), so why not send those in to do your dirty work, and let the rebels relax on the ship?
None of this takes away from what a fun movie it was, but people who try to call this a "hacker move" or a "sci fi movie" and take it seriously need to recognize that it fell very short of the mark to be anything of the sort. Its a superhero story with lots of cool fights and effects. Nothing more.
Re:GAP ad was completely different (Score:2)
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
2. Why couldn't the avitar "bend the rules? It was able to simulate changing into an agent. Also, the agenst themselves were just computer-generated avitars, and they could bend the rules better than any of the humans (other than Neo at the end).
Saw the movie about 6 times, still haven't bothered buying a copy yet. To summarize, my review is this: a very well-made, stylish, and fun movie with great wire-fu scenes, great effects, and a very, very poorly thought-out science fiction back-story.
Concept to Film (Score:2)
----------------------
Storyboards and art from the movie on the website. (Score:4)
And if thats not enough you can get your arses over to the Hack The Matrix [hackthematrix.com] website and enter "Darrow" or "Skroce" as the codes to see some more amazing art.
Some of the strips even show Neo in army fatigues that some of you are talking about. The comic Neo character is WAY cooler than Keanu. I am just waiting eagerly for Matrix-II.
SPOILER: can you spell v-i-r-u-s!
A Summary: (Score:3)
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:2)
Excuse me
Stunning special effects... (Score:5)
Geoff Darrow's art (Score:2)
Praise Causey!
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
Unique to Gnosticism... (Score:2)
In other words, you have to take the red pill.
But before that, you have to be given a red pill. Not everybody is offered one.
The red pill is the "gnosis," whence the name of the religion. Other details, such as the evil nature of the current reigning god and the possibility of redemption through the Gnosis, are also exact parallels. You really shouldn't offer criticism about something you know nothing about.
This is why Science fiction is ghettoized (Score:4)
Science fiction is by its very nature, a revolutionary, subservice literature, so it must be shunted aside by the man into a secluded ghetto. Sometime this works to well, as science fiction is one genre of literature that proliferated in the Soviet Union, and was even given it's blessing by the Politburo. True, most of it was rah-rah first Soviet on the moon,but quite a lot of subversive anti-Soviet literature became published, if you doubt me, check out Lem's Memoirs Found in a Bathtub.
The last time SF attempted to get itself out of the ghetto was during the New Wave movement of the '70's, led by Ellison, Dick and Pynchon. Needless to say, popularizing SF and exposing it to the masses would never do, also, raising the consciousness of the geeky SF readers by exposing them to drugs, sex and politics would also upset the status quo of the miliary-industrial complex. SO the military-industrail complex reacted, making REndevsous with Rama beat Gravity's Rainbow for the NEbula in 1973, funding Niven and Pournelle to write right-wing spacve opera, and generally silencing the left wing New WAve movement. Have we heard anything much from Delany, Dick, Pynchon or Ellison since?
Tron (Score:2)
Now that would be a book worth dishing out 150.00 for!!!
authentic Original draft of Bush's apology to China [antioffline.com]
Re:Science Fiction - A danger to society? (Score:2)
When my friend and I first went to see it in the movie theatre, we thought it would be a lame story with really cool special effects. But instead, the story drove the special effects, rather than the other way around, which is why I love this movie so much. It's entertainment, not reality, people. Crouching Tiger is a wonderful movie too, but it's not reality. I still don't understand why so many people want reality in movies? Most movies are for entertainment purposes, not educational purposes, and The Matrix was definitely an entertainment movie. If you really think this movie was going to change society, just wait and see. It won't. Just sit back and enjoy the show, everyone.
Why can't people just enjoy the entertainment value of movies, instead of nitpicking all the little logic faults within a movie or TV show?
IMHO (Score:2)
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po (Score:2)
The Brain in the Vat may be old hat . . . (Score:2)