Posts by Richard Hernandez13

rapidstag74 said:Who are they actually trying to persuade in the movie (proud Americans)?

😕
Khmm ... I was actually saying that the Englishmen are the ones doing the persuading with the Americans. In this film, it's the Englishmen who are trying to win over the Frenchmen. So, if you think about it, the main characters are really... the Englishmen. Amer doesn't have much of a say here.

So, which movies have you all been watching lately?

Is there any truth to the idea that the movie actually keeps going even after the final big climax rolls? I remember Harry Knowles mentioning something along those lines in his very first review over at AITCN. He was insisting that it isn't just some teaser or a preview for a sequel, but rather an actual epilogue to part one "that completely changes how you view everything you just saw."

I can't help but wonder, though—was he actually watching the standard theatrical release, or did he perhaps catch some different version?

In the novel, the Englishmen were essentially forcing the Americans into a corner.. 😁

...but honestly, it’s still such an incredible movie. Even if you aren't exactly thrilled about Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany absolutely steals every single scene from him. It's a must-watch, whether you're a massive history buff or just someone looking for a great story.

Betty Gonzalez30 said:It feels a bit like that parallel where you have something like The Matrix Reloaded and its sequel, or maybe...

They aren't even filming at all!

You're spot on, slyrider16!

Ridley Scott has actually mentioned he’d be totally down to direct Alien 4 if someone could just come up with a decent script.

But you know how it goes—between the broken telephone game and people "fact-checking" things on the internet, some overeager "film journalists" have managed to spread this ridiculous rumor that Scott somehow already filmed a sixth installment.🙄

William Morris2 said:It looks like, along with the whole Alien vs. Predator situation, they're actually working on Alien 5 and Predator 3 too.
In case you guys weren't aware...😁 😁 😉

They aren't filming. 🙂

Officer 663 said:Well, I guess he’s at least a bit more "lively" than Terrence Malick, isn't he?😁

Honestly, though, the way Malick times his appearances to coincide with the frequency of Halley's Comet feels like it's just part of his whole directorial persona.😁

We’re talking about those modern directors who have already carved out their own signature styles and are still very much alive and kicking—which is why you won't see someone like Wim Wenders on this list; honestly, the man has already delivered his absolute masterpieces.

lonescout2 said:Well, yeah, I guess I was a little bit off the mark there 🙂

But Quentin Tarantino is very much alive 😁

You really can't just slot Tarantino into some arbitrary ranking—the guy is truly one of a kind. 😁

The only ones I'm struggling with lately are the Coen brothers; I don't know, their recent stuff just hasn't sat right with me, and I think that's actually started to color how I view their older movies too. 😢

lonescout2 said:Yeah, I have to admit that list feels a little bit off to me, especially since the Wachowski siblings made the cut but Orson Welles didn't...

Well, just keep in mind that this is specifically a list of directors who are still with us.

You've gotta be kidding me, I was actually just about to start a whole new thread about this exact list. 😁

I'm honestly pretty relieved to see Trier sitting so low on the rankings. 😁

Well, you really only have two ways to look at this:

This movie is total garbage!
This movie absolutely rocks!

😁😁

I’d suggest checking out IMDb for the official movie page—it’s got all the synopses and everything else you might need.

rapidstag74 said:Is Spencer Tracy acting in it?

He's actually acting in it,

so that's definitely the movie you're looking for.

Is he just some guy who's obsessed with making everything look moody and dark?

Exley, he was just the producer for the movie "Lords of Dogtown".

So, did he stir up some kind of drama involving skateboarding?

On a different note, his name has also been linked to a potential adaptation of Ellroy's "The Black Dahlia" (which honestly, I think would be a perfect fit for him).
Of course, that doesn't mean we're actually going to see "Rendezvous with Rama" or "Dahlia" hit the big screen anytime soon.

blueranger13 said:Richard Hernandez13...

I totally agree that you can't just turn a book into a movie and expect it to be a perfect translation of what the author intended...

But then again... The Wachowskis weren't really trying to interpret anyone else's work.
They went with their own vision, which, if you ask any hardcore Sci-Fi reader, feels pretty illogical in so many spots, especially since they mixed in all this religious subtext they clearly picked up along the way.
After seeing the first film, I never would have guessed it was going to end up like this.

I think you misunderstood me.

No worries though, my bad... I feel like I've been a bit slow lately. 😁

What I actually meant to say was:
There are certain things in literature—specifically regarding how stories are told—that you just can't transplant directly onto the screen. For instance, an author can ramble on forever about the backstory of a specific object or a relationship. Take > (by Neal Stephenson, right?), which is pretty close to The Matrix because it’s that cyberpunk vibe dealing with VR. There's that librarian character who spends hundreds of pages explaining the history of a computer virus, tracing it from ancient Sumer all the way to its cosmic origins! You get what I mean? A sci-fi writer can take a breather in a book and write pages upon pages of technical or historical background for something that might even be a minor plot point (like that gas from >—was it called Blue Nine?).
How on earth do you fit something like that into a movie? ...especially one that's also packed with action elements (we shouldn't forget that, nor should we blame the film for it). You just can't, if you ask me.
People just don't seem to get it.
It was at its absolute worst with >—you had crowds of people nitpicking every tiny detail that "wasn't like the book." Just look at any fantasy forum—you'll see guys arguing over potential adaptations of fantasy epics they love, claiming the movie would need to be hours long just because they refuse to let go of the sacred texts. They insist every single nuance and every single secondary character has to be there—well, maybe not the ones they personally disliked, but still 😁. And don't even get me started on the debates over >! Good grief, people, if you want "everything exactly as it was in the book," then just read the book.

Ehem... I've drifted off-topic again. 😁

So, basically, there's no way to get that kind of black-and-white exposition in a film, which is why I suggested not viewing the movie through the lens of Sci-Fi literature.
In The Matrix, the Machines feel so... "machine-like" because the filmmakers needed to create distance between them and the "human" characters to ramp up the tension of their conflict (since, you know, they're at war). Look at >; the conflict between machines and humans is presented just like that, without a massive lecture, and the movie works perfectly without us ever needing to ask why.
I don't know about you, but I got chills during the > when those massive, red-eyed pyramidal behemoths were just gliding across the battlefield, crushing everything organic in their path. Who knows? Maybe the Machines just take pride in being purely mechanical. 😁 And you can't deny that by the end of >, they actually learned something.
Use a little imagination! ;D

By the way, did anyone else notice that the foundation of the Machine City is made of fractals? I'd love to dive into a deep philosophical rant about that, but I really need to head out to grab a beer and some snacks. 😁

blueranger13 said:It’s pretty obvious that the primary rule for any big-budget Sci-Fi movie is just ensuring a solid return on investment with maximum profit margins.
That’s the foundation.
Everything else is just extra fluff.

Now, I wasn't really trying to lecture anyone on the laws of profitability—I mean, sure, those apply to literature too if you think about it.

What I actually meant was more about the fundamental principles of storytelling and cinema—things like theme, narrative structure, and dramatic pacing... you can't just take a book and photocopy it onto a screen and expect it to work.

blueranger13 said:That scene at the end where the Architect tells Oracle he isn't human—and that’s why he sticks to his word—really drives home the idea that The Matrix has always functioned as a sort of negotiated agreement.
But...
Where does the notion come from that an AI, as an independent intelligence, is incapable of lying or adapting to its own shifting needs?

It’s probably just a matter of principle; they might have realized that being honest and ethical actually works—basically, the wheels of history turned, and they learned something new (which is pretty much what Oracle is touching on at the very end).

blueranger13 said:I’m not saying the whole concept of the movie is garbage... but I really feel like they could have struck a better balance between a script meant for the general public and one specifically tailored for hardcore Sci-Fi fans.

I think the issue stems from the fact that you tend to view Sci-Fi primarily through the lens of literature, whereas a Sci-Fi film follows its own set of rules since it’s a completely different medium.

Personally, I think the trilogy manages to touch on some really profound ideas. For instance, even in the original The Matrix, there’s this sense that the Machines and humans are living in a kind of symbiotic relationship.

blueranger13 said:Why on earth would an AI need to cover the entire planet in machines... wouldn't an AI's existence be perfectly fine living inside bio-chips instead of tons of heavy metal?
I mean, why bother with a billion Sentinels when the only real threat to the AI is just some ragtag group of rebels in Zion?

It’s basically just the leftovers of a war between machines and hardware. You still see the resistance movement operating right up there on the surface.

blueranger13 said:If humans were the ones who polluted the sky... couldn't the AI have figured out a way to disperse those clouds over all those years—maybe a thousand or five thousand years?—and just switch over to solar power to get rid of the whole pesky human burden?

Well, having a darkened, gloomy sky actually has a huge psychological impact on the survivors. Besides, the Matrix was essentially a peace treaty or a settlement reached between humanity and the machines.