I wanted to be Revan again

[cr7roolz]

Imagine that, fighting off swarms after swarms of Dark Jedis for the entire game, all as powerful as Palpatine, wow, how fast do you want the Star Wars universe to collapse ?!?

Don't think the guy meant all enemies are a powerful as Palpatine (would be pretty lame after all), just the main one.

 

Maybe there could be more than one Sith Master, so we also get several apprentices that can be at like Darth Maul level. That way we can still be a Yoda-like Jedi and the game would still be difficult.

[Opus131]

Don't think the guy meant all enemies are a powerful as Palpatine (would be pretty lame after all), just the main one.

 

Not at all, he meant all the enemies in the game.

 

Maybe there could be more than one Sith Master, so we also get several apprentices that can be at like Darth Maul level. That way we can still be a Yoda-like Jedi and the game would still be difficult.

 

Darth Maul wouldn't present a challenge to Revan, and according to the rules of Sith, there can be only be ONE such apprentice.

 

That leaves you with the final boss and his apprentice, that ought to be an interesting game, wow.

 

Again, you can't make a game with a character that is as powerful as the universe allow.

 

Besides, what fun would it be to play a character that can't advance or grow anymore ?!?

 

This was, and still is, the dumbest idea anybody has ever spouted in this forum...

[Darth Jebus]

I really REALLY hope this will be the last Star Wars game obsidian ever makes, the lamers are just impossible to bear...

^agrees about the lamers, which Opus131 probably thinks of me as...

All i ask is for people to think about what they are going to say.

 

At the end of KOTOR, Revan is about as strong as Yoda, how in the bloody hell are you going to make a game out of that ?!?

LOL! Exactly. Can you imagine if a movie where the main character was uber-powerful - we're talkin' Christ-like powerful - at the end of the movie returned in the sequel? What kind of challenges would he face? How could anything be believable after that? Oh, wait. That was the Matrix trilogy wasn't it?

[Grandpa]

This was, and still is, the dumbest idea anybody has ever spouted in this forum...

Uhhh....KoTOR: AE?

[Fardragon]

I really REALLY hope this will be the last Star Wars game obsidian ever makes, the lamers are just impossible to bear...

^agrees about the lamers, which Opus131 probably thinks of me as...

All i ask is for people to think about what they are going to say.

 

At the end of KOTOR, Revan is about as strong as Yoda, how in the bloody hell are you going to make a game out of that ?!?

LOL! Exactly. Can you imagine if a movie where the main character was uber-powerful - we're talkin' Christ-like powerful - at the end of the movie returned in the sequel? What kind of challenges would he face? How could anything be believable after that? Oh, wait. That was the Matrix trilogy wasn't it?

A problem with Superman too, and why Batman is much cooler.

[Maria Caliban]

I hate Batman...

I wouldn't mind playing Revan in another game but I do prefer original stories. In an industry dominated by 'sequelitis,' I'll take whatever originality I can get.

[Opus131]

Uhhh....KoTOR: AE?

Ok, perhaps you have a point there...

[Opus131]

Oh, wait. That was the Matrix trilogy wasn't it?

The Matrix prequels are a text book example of why this is wrong...

[EnderAndrew]

Oh, wait.

[ShinIchiro]

Sequels don't doom anything as long as they're good. Same for prequels. A really bad se/prequel runs the risk of detracting/ruining the entire series. Look at Episodes I and II. Star Wars seemed a lot lamer after they came out to me. And I'm a huge SW fan.

[Opus131]

As a student of philosophy and religion, I appreciated the Matrix sequels.

 

Maybe you should consider study something else...

 

As an action buff, and film student, I appreciated the ground-breaking visuals and scenes that aren't likely to be duplicated any time soon.

 

Tasteless, over-blown CGI doesn't account for 'ground-braking' visuals in my book.

 

A great action scene is much more then simple generated computer graphics.

 

You don't create great action by throwing money at it, the sequels were incredibly dull in my book.

 

I remember seeing T2 for the first time, when young John Conner was being chased by the evil Terminator in a semi-truck.  That was amazing.  That scene wasn't topped until the freeway sequence in Matrix Reloaded.

 

I remember T2, the underwhelming plot and the reek of hollywood ooze. Special effects were great (far, FAR better then the Matrix, and of much better taste), but i hated how the Terminator series went from dark, brooding horror science fiction to familiy block buster entertainemnt...

 

Now, the Matrix sequels suffer from the Happy-Ending phenomena, and from Keanu Reeve's wooden acting.

 

If that's all you think was wrong with the sequels, you need to drop being a film student and concentrating on something else, preferably, not philosophy nor religion.

 

The story didn't suffer from the Superman complex.  .

 

Watch reloaded again, and observe the long winded combat scenes with Neo in it, and try to feel any exitment knowing well enought he can't loose nor be hurt in anyway.

 

In net contrast, the whole Morpheus sub-plot was at least interesting, and it was entertaining to see him prevail faced against odds far exceding his powers.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think the Matrix special effects were anything but inferior to those seen in T2. The difference in years and the technical advancement should be an indication of that.

 

Moving on, the Matrix sequels didn't warranted any special reaction from me in terms of the fighting sequences. Reloaded made something which i thought was impossible - which was to make the fights look dull. The first Matrix, in terms of combat sequences, manages to be quite convincing and interesting. One of the main reasons for this is that the combats are all done between people. The coreographed effort of two actors is much more convincing than nigh endless CGI Smiths re-enacting Dragon Ball Zesque fights (i swear i was half-expecting a couple of Smiths to energize, grow blonde hair and pull flurries of blows and Kamehamahas (sp)). Granted, there are combats against human opponents in the sequels as well, but to a lesser degree, and not as interesting. Bullet Time was overexacerbated.

 

And in the first movie, there was always the doubt of wheter Neo was in fact the One or not (i know, having Keanu as the main star of the movie and not having him be the One would be a copout; i'm talking storywise). Each fight - specially against agents - carried the underlying idea that a fight could be the last. Not as much in the sequels. If anything, the Matrix sequels only made me enjoy the original more.

 

 

Regardless, in the end, the Matrix sequels suck. Reloaded has Keanu's scrawny ass on-screen. Folks, that's a big NO right there.

[Opus131]

I think the Matrix special effects were anything but inferior to those seen in T2. The difference in years and the technical advancement should be an indication of that.

They looked fake and unbeleivable.

 

The fight of the many agent Smith alone was one of the most embarassing moments in special effect history, the use of CGI was so over-whelming in the sequels that i still feel like a was whatching a digital anime rather then a real movie.

 

Those are not great special effects. Great special effects are supposed to be seamingless and transparent to the viewer.

 

I wasn't for one second convinced that what i was whatching was real, thus, The Matrix sequels were a failure.

 

The passing of years means nothing, CGI is cheaper then other types of special effects, and it's easy to just slap it all over the place and try to 'wow' the audience, even thought it looks completely fake.

 

If anything, the passing of years have lowered the quality of special FX by turning action movies into digital cartoons...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think the Matrix special effects were anything but inferior to those seen in T2. The difference in years and the technical advancement should be an indication of that.

They looked fake and unbeleivable.

I'm sorry, i must've missed the credibility in the part where a liquid metal blob assumes a human apperance.

 

Seriously, if the gripe you have with them is the credibility, sure, it's your opinion. But in terms of quality, i still maintain mine that the Matrix is superior to T2.

[Iolo]

Not that that would surprise me. There were after all 12 years or so between the movies. In terms of which is the better movie, T2 is by the far the better one in my opinion.

[Opus131]

I'm sorry, i must've missed the credibility in the part where a liquid metal blob assumes a human apperance.

 

Are you generally this thick or you just like to play games ?!?

[EnderAndrew]

Look.

 

The Matrix Trilogy features a deeper subtext about the human conscience that most people overlook.

 

The trilogy makes use of metaphor in breaking down many of the typical eastern theories of thought, and mixes them with typical Judeo-Christian savior images. It was clever, and fairly well done.

 

The movies had their flaws. Most people expected an action movie to top the Matrix. Most people hated the Architect sequence, and all the dialogue. Morpheus' subplot in Reloaded is crucial to the story in which we see Neo no longer rely upon Morpheus as a mentor. Neo sees more clearly than Morpheus.

 

The story isn't about Neo being hurt by bullets. It is about belief, choice, and fate. Neo had a destiny. How much can he alter that destiny? He had to strip away conventional thoughts, and strip away all his teachings. Like the Buddhist saying, when you meet the Buddha, you must kill the Buddha. Eventually Neo had to distance himself even from his teacher, lest his teacher's vision blind him.

 

Just because you didn't like the Mr. Smith fight Opus, that doesn't mean the whole movie lacks substance. You just failed to see it.

 

I should also note that on an action standpoint, Reloaded tried to deliver on many different levels. Woo often made films that focused entirely on one style of action, as is the popular way to go. Woo would focus on gun-battles. Other directors might focus on chase sequences. Other directors focus on martial-arts battles.

 

In the first Matrix, we see a mixture of all three predominant action styles. In Reloaded, we see this diversified even more. There are people who loved the Mr. Smith battle. Personally, I prefered the short but better choreagraphed battle between Seraph and Neo. Seraph didn't get enough screen time.

 

And the CGI wasn't bad with the Mr. Smith battle. It just is a matter of willing suspesion of disbelief. There are tons of times I've gone back and watched old movies from my youth. At the time, I loved and accepted the visual affects. I see now how cheesy they appeared, but so long as the story was good, I accepted the effects. You didn't care for the concept of 100 Mr. Smith's battling Neo, and thusly your brain saw the effect as being preposterous.

 

The liquid Terminator effect was equally preposterous, and clearly fake. That doesn't happen in real life. You however, prefer the concept, and thusly judge the execution when you mean to judge the concept. There is a distinction.

[Opus131]

The Matrix Trilogy features a deeper subtext about the human conscience that most people overlook.

 

It does nothing of the sort, it only tries to cather to popular culture and never moves furrthere then that, the film makers themselves as shallow as ignorant as the masses they are trying to impress.

 

The trilogy makes use of metaphor in breaking down many of the typical eastern theories of thought, and mixes them with typical Judeo-Christian savior images.  It was clever, and fairly well done.

 

All you see in the movie is purely, meaningless drivel glorified by rationalized allegory (or metaphor), the letter being the only vehicle of philosophical delivery the shallow and ignorant masses can understand.

 

The 'clever' and 'fairtly well done' (you got to be f*cking kidding me) exposition of what is nothing but pop philosophical buzz concepts and pseudo-intellectual utterances is actually as simple and as transparant as you can get, but that's crucial if the simple minded are to understand.

 

Most people expected an action movie to top the Matrix.

 

What we got was a sh*tty action movie 'posing' as some sort of deeper philosophical metaphor.

 

Most people hated the Architect sequence, and all the dialogue. 

 

And with reason.

 

The whole scene broke the number one rule in film making : 'Show, but don't tell'.

 

But no, the Matrix told, and it was lenghty, wordy, and in the end, completely meaningless.

 

After a 20 minutes speech, the Architect says absolutly NOTHING, it was quite embarassing to watch...

 

Morpheus' subplot in Reloaded is crucial to the story in which we see Neo no longer rely upon Morpheus as a mentor.  Neo sees more clearly than Morpheus.

 

----

 

It is about belief, choice, and fate.  Neo had a destiny.  How much can he alter that destiny?  He had to strip away conventional thoughts, and strip away all his teachings.  Like the Buddhist saying, when you meet the Buddha, you must kill the Buddha.  Eventually Neo had to distance himself even from his teacher, lest his teacher's vision blind him.

 

Somebody kill me please, i can't deal with this level of stupidity and ignorance.

 

Just because you didn't like the Mr. Smith fight

 

That has nothing to do with my opinion of the rest of the movie, i was merely discussing the films from a purely FX stand point...

 

You just failed to see it.

 

There's nothing there to see but pure shallowness.

 

It just is a matter of willing suspesion of disbelief.

 

After fighting Smith, Neo escapes by keeling and sprinting up in the sky.

 

You see, it is perfectly acceptable to me to suspend my disbelief in this instance, and Neo ability to fly is perfectly credible within the perameters of the story.

 

HOWEVER, when a terrible and glaringly unconvincing digital replica of Neo freezes on the screen and pans around for a few seconds before flying away, it completely destroys my will to suspend my disbelief, for i wasn't told that characters in the Matrix were supposed to look like high poly models taken straight out from Doom3.

 

The liquid Terminator effect was equally preposterous, and clearly fake.  That doesn't happen in real life.  You however, prefer the concept, and thusly judge the execution when you mean to judge the concept.  There is a distinction.

 

Please.

 

Wheter the object it's realistic in itself or not it's completely and utterly IRRILEVANT to the argument.

 

I'll say it again, it doesn't freaking matter what it is that you are trying to replicate throught the special FX, what i'm talking about is how succesful you are in replicating the object in the first place.

 

I can't beleive i had to stop and explain that to you, this is beyond retarded.

 

The fact is, the special FX of the T2 were created to look like what liquid metal would look like, and it was very good at that.

 

At contrary, when it came to portraining a human being, the Matrix were a complete failure, thus, T2 special FX were far more successful and beleivable.

 

The Matrix sequels were a disaster from many different angles, and single handetly destroyed the whole franchise in one swoop. Congrats to the film makers for achieving the impossible, i look forward to more of those exiting rave scenes (especially now that Andy Wachowsky turned into a woman)...

[GhostofAnakin]

I don't think I've ever seen more condescending people on one message board before.

[EnderAndrew]

The FX companies responsible for those effects sequences were lauded by their community, and have gone on to loftier contracts. 9 times out of 10, I'll take the opinions of the professional community over some random bum. Your outright dismissal of the effects while most film students and film experts applaud is how you say, "retarded?"

 

The Matrix 101

 

This site may explain some of the basic theories that escaped your simple grasp. Several books have been published breaking down the philosophical ramifications of the trilogy, and there are college courses on the movies now.

 

People have written thesisis on the subject, and you haven't shown one bit of evidence or proof to your claims that the characters and subject matter in the trilogy are more than pop-culture fluff as you claim.

 

You see, the person who is ignorant of film is you. Quentit Tarentino regurgitates pop-culture fluff, and the masses love him for it. If the Matrix featured a similiar regurgitation, they would have been better received. You say the Architect says nothing.

 

That merely means you heard nothing. The Architect lays down the guantlet, and fills in backstory. He also shows his hand unwittingly, that he alone is not in power as he would like Neo to believe.

 

The sequels were too wordy. They did tell more than show. The only reason is that the masses failed to recognize the symbolism in the first movie, which should have been blatantly obvious.

 

The character names of Neo and Trinity weren't obvious enough clues to the Gnostic Christian messages the film was loaded with.

 

The films are flawed. But that doesn't mean they lacked substance. Again, you merely missed it. Too sad for you. If I thought you had an open-mind about anything in the world, I might grant you more of my time and try to explain it.

 

However, given your history of messages on this forum, such a debate would fall on empty ears. You are the proof to Volourn's pudding (his signature), of "My opinion is factual, there is no reason to debate it." Everyone of your opinions is thrown around like gospel, and you result to childish names when someone else sees the world differently.

 

The seeds of inteliigence and knowledge are planted in the ability to question one's beliefs and open one's self to seeing new and different things. You try to come across as knowledgeable and haughty. The truth is, you're merely stubborn and antagonistic.

 

I see right through you and have only pity.

[EnderAndrew]

And for the record, I do believe the Keanu Reeves was actually the one standing there before he flew up to the sky. I don't that is a digital recreation. When he's standing on his side kicking at insane speeds, that's a digital recreation.

[Opus131]

The FX companies responsible for those effects sequences were lauded by their community, and have gone on to loftier contracts.  9 times out of 10, I'll take the opinions of the professional community over some random bum.  Your outright dismissal of the effects while most film students and film experts applaud is how you say, "retarded?"

 

I'm sorry, but i don't need to take the word of 'film experts' to appraise something.

 

I only trust my own exstrapolations, and i stand by the fact that, reguardless of their technical brilliancy, The Matrix special FX were tasteless, over-bearing and far too glaring.

 

I'm sure the 'professional community' praised the companies responsible for those effects based on their technical achievement, but that has no bearing on the way they were used on the film.

 

I'm sure putting a digital Neo on screen was not the fault of the special FX people, and i'm not blaming them for it.

 

In the first movie, special FX were done 'just right', they enhanched the action without over-stepping on it, which is exactly what i hated the most in the sequels.

 

As i said, it was like whatching an digital anime, how is that good film making ?!?

 

The Matrix 101

 

This site may explain some of the basic theories that escaped your simple grasp.  Several books have been published breaking down the philosophical ramifications of the trilogy, and there are college courses on the movies now.

 

Is this some sort of joke ?!?

 

Can anybody confirm there are actually colledge classes about this crap ?!?

 

By god, beware of the Matrix, the new Plato.

 

And then you wonder why American educational system are the laughting stock of the western world...

 

People have written thesisis on the subject, and you haven't shown one bit of evidence or proof to your claims that the characters and subject matter in the trilogy are more than pop-culture fluff as you claim.

 

Proof ?!? The movies themselves are all the proof you need.

 

Philosophy is not the bread for squallid allegorical mind f*cks.

 

The relogious reference in the Matrix don't mean anything.

 

Neo signifies the image the savior ?!? So ?!?

 

I thought philosophy was the rational vessel of our beleives, a characterization of our humanity, and an inquiritive investigation of our reality and our place in the universe.

 

From what you told me, all i see is some nebolous reference to religious dogmas, which are hardly philosophical per-se if taken at face value, let alone as a cross-reference.

 

You see, the person who is ignorant of film is you.  Quentit Tarentino regurgitates pop-culture fluff, and the masses love him for it.

 

Tarantino is known for his stylish bearing of the pops, but the reason for his sucess doesn't rely on his presentation of popular culture, but what he does with it, how he presents it. He doesn't just 'regurgitate' pop-culture 'fluff', he redefines it to it's purest essence and then completely turns it's back at it, untill he twists each pop reference into a parody of itself, and he does that with incredible force.

 

You can't but smirk at the simple logic in which he makes fun (and sense) of the very popular culture his visual style is based of.

 

But in the end, tarantino is mere entertainment, the Matrix however is trying to sell itself as something more, which is rather embarassing if you ask me...

 

That merely means you heard nothing.  The Architect lays down the guantlet, and fills in backstory.

 

True, but was his tirade really necessary ?!?

 

He could have layed down his speech much more efficently if he was as smart as he was supposed to be.

 

The problem i reckon is that the film makers wanted to give an impression of just how smart he was. This is why they took something really simple and tried to blind the audience with big words and contorted colloqualism to make it sound all 'deep and stuff'.

 

He also shows his hand unwittingly, that he alone is not in power as he would like Neo to believe. 

 

What the hell ?!? He TELLS Neo that his decision is necessary to the continuity of the Matrix, whichout which the machines are in grave trouble.

 

The whole point is that Neo has to make a choise. Being the one, the anomaly, his choise can reverbarate through the whole of the Matrix, giving everybody wired in the system a sense of fullfillment, a realization of choise which is so much necessary to us, thus, avoiding the whole system from collapsing as the human pshyche rejects the virtual world of the matrix (if even sub-conciously) as it needs choise to validate

itself.

 

In the end, it didn't matter which door Neo choosed, as long as he made a choise, any choise.

 

This is why the whole idea of 'cause and effect' was so important.

 

The machines couldn't understand that humans weren't just the product of cause and effect, the human mind be couldn't translated into a program as if it was a mere scrypt, it had to be validated throught choise, but the machines couldn't do that.

 

They needed another human, the one.

 

And so, he makes it plainly clear to Neo that he was completely powerless, he never tries to give a different impression (which really tells me how much you understood of this movie).

 

Neo on the other has no choise but to make a choise, this is the only power the Architect holds over him in the end.

 

It's a nice sub-plot, particularly for a sci-fi action flick, if only the deliver wasn't such a disaster.

 

The sequels were too wordy.  They did tell more than show.  The only reason is that the masses failed to recognize the symbolism in the first movie, which should have been blatantly obvious.

 

The character names of Neo and Trinity weren't obvious enough clues to the Gnostic Christian messages the film was loaded with.

 

This is where my problems with the movie begin.

 

I'm sorry, but plain 'symbolism' doesn't mean anything.

 

I don't give a sh*t about the gnostic christian 'messages', why should i ?!?

 

So there are religious references in the movies, ok, now what ?!? What's the message ?!? Where's the deep philosophical meaning of it ?!?

 

That it refers to religious dogmas ?!?

 

The films are flawed.  But that doesn't mean they lacked substance.  Again, you merely missed it.  Too sad for you.  If I thought you had an open-mind about anything in the world, I might grant you more of my time and try to explain it.

 

By all means, go ahead, 'explain' it to me, i'm always ready for a laught...

 

The seeds of inteliigence and knowledge are planted in the ability to question one's beliefs and open one's self to seeing new and different things. 

 

That's assuming the Matrix corrisponds to valid beleives worth questioning.

[Opus131]

I don't think I've ever seen more condescending people on one message board before. 

I'm not being given much of a choise, what am i to do ?!?

 

To anybody who likes to know why the Matrix is filled with so much pseudo-intellectual drivel, it all started with Star Wars :

 

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/20...ucas/index.html

[Opus131]

BTW, i still can't beleive they actually teach the Matrix in colledge, that was really a shocker... :ph34r:

[GhostofAnakin]

I'm not being given much of a choise, what am i to do ?!?

Actually, you are given a choice.

 

Just because someone disagrees with your point of view doesn't necessitate a condescending attitude. It's a debate of opinions. No reason to get personal or talk down to someone.

 

Even if you don't agree with him and think his views are garbage, that doesn't automatically mean you have to start being condescending in your tone. That's how flame wars start because the topic strays from the actual debate to a more personal bitch fest.