9 ms·

To me, the sequels were worthwhile just for one solitary scene. In the third movie, Trinity is piloting the ship and has to gain higher than usual altitude for

To me, the sequels were worthwhile just for one solitary scene. In the third movie, Trinity is piloting the ship and has to gain higher than usual altitude for some reason that I've now forgotten. This takes her above the black clouds permanently enveloping the Earth. Sunlight pours into the cockpit. For the first and only time in her life, she sees the real sun with her own physical eyes. She's overwhelmed. It's just a brief golden moment before the black clouds swallow her again. #3 was not a good movie. But that scene has stayed with me longer than many scenes in much better movies.

ggambetta 1y ago
Likewise, the highway chase in the first non-existent sequel is pretty epic.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  Whether or not you enjoy the stories, the action scenes and visuals in the sequels were groundbreaking use of CGI in action films. Around the same time the LotR trilogy came out which did something similar. I rewatched the first one the other day and for the most part the visuals and CGI have held up over time, barely any "oh man this is bad CGI lmao" moments. Which somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this".
  - doubleg72 1y ago
    I didn’t think lotr used cgi
    - bigDinosaur 1y ago
      It does, most notably perhaps for things like the Ents and large parts of the battle in RoTK (e.g. Army of the Dead, Oliphaunts). It just did so much practically that it's one of those films where it might be a bit difficult to delineate if you aren't looking closely, similar to films like Fury Road.
    - andrepd 1y ago
      It does, absolutely everywhere? Down to fully CGI characters like Gollum.
    - ekaryotic 1y ago
      the actor that played gandalf ian mckellen? had a minor breakdown on set after he was made to stand on a greenscreen for multiple days.
      - darick 1y ago
        That was on the set of The Hobbit, not LOTR, which used far less CGI
    - trq01758 1y ago
      Andy Serkis was great, but not as good at shape-shifting. For LOTR renderfarm WETA bought a bunch of SGI 1200 dual core Pentium III 700MHz servers with 1GB RAM, 9 GB SCSI disks all running RedHat Linux. I've read at some point they had 192 SGI 1100 and 1200 servers working.
      - jiggawatts 1y ago
        It’s mind blowing that you can rent one VM in the cloud with the same spec. Here’s an example with nearly one kilocores: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/sizes/memory-optimized/mdsv3-vhm-series?tabs=sizebasic https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/siz...
    - thorin 1y ago
      It didn't use anywhere near as much as the hobbit, but lots of things are enhanced. I have a similar problem with Avengers/Marvel which just doesn't look great to me. Avatar did look very good though. The main problem I have with CGI is if the story isn't there, which for me is definitely the case with most Avengers movies which are just a mess.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Gollum? The Balrog? Pre-CGI it looked like this: https://www.galaxus.de/im/Files/1/8/4/9/5/2/0/9/gollum_serkis_on_gondor_set_format.jpg https://www.galaxus.de/im/Files/1/8/4/9/5/2/0/9/gollum_serki...
  - iainmerrick 1y ago
    I think the main trick is that they set out to make the best and most impressive movie(s) they could with every tool available -- practical effects, old-school camera angle tricks to make the hobbits look small, hordes of extras and well-crafted props, as well as groundbreaking CGI. Same with Jurassic Park, come to think about it -- there's famously more animatronic dinosaurs in that movie than CGI. As opposed to relying on one shiny new tool to take care of everything. I think with The Hobbit they got over-enamoured with the notion that you can do anything with CGI. More recently, Andor is a good example with its mix of CGI and massive sets; The Mandalorian is a bad example with its over-reliance on the "Volume" LED stage.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      > As opposed to relying on one shiny new tool to take care of everything. I think with The Hobbit they got over-enamoured with the notion that you can do anything with CGI. But the visuals are The Hobbit's main selling point. People hate it because of the writing.
      - iainmerrick 1y ago
        I was responding to the parent comment, that the CGI somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this" I agree with that, The Hobbit looked pretty bad. You're right that part of it was the bad writing, but I think it's a vicious circle -- if you're convinced that CGI can make twenty minutes of elf-vs-goblin parkour look cool, you'll write that into the script. If instead you started from the viewpoint of, well, we made a successful movie trilogy out of a famous book trilogy; here's another famous and beloved book by the same author, who even went back and revised it to make it fit with the trilogy -- why don't we just use all the tools at our disposal to put that book on the big screen? Maybe that could have resulted in one really good movie.
        saalweachter 1y ago
        My nine-year-old seems to enjoy the Hobbit as much as The Lord of the Rings, so part of me suspects that it's just old curmudgeons like me who really dislike it. For me, what grates are the action sequences that feel like they were written for the video game tie in -- the river escape sequence, for instance.
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    > the action scenes and visuals in the sequels were groundbreaking use of CGI in action films Well, the innovative scenes vary from the incredibly good highway chase to the boring and ridiculous fight between Neo and Agent Smith. Those movies were groundbreaking in "bad uses of CGI" too.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  The moment when he picks them up off the mid-explosion truck gives me chills every time. The build-up is so good.
  - wmeredith 1y ago
    Except diesel doesn't explode like that. (I don't know what's wrong with me that I can't just enjoy movies.)
    - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
      It’s computer world diesel. The swapped out for kerosine for efficiency, and the tank was 1/3rd full with a ton of high pressure vapor. Diesel doesn’t “explode”, but it can deflagrate very quickly with the right vapor conditions.
      - saalweachter 1y ago
        Alternatively, we've seen them do things like replace all the doors and windows in a building with bricks when no one's looking. Maybe they loaded the truck up with a variety of explosives as it was driving down the highway.
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      If you don't like that bit you should probably also fast forward the flying guy and the trucktop sword fight!
- saalweachter 1y ago
  I also like just the idea that Neo being The One and his powers don't quite matter. Sure, he couldn't have done the things he did in the second movie, escape the Merovingian, steal the Keymaker, rescue everyone, etc, without his powers in the Matrix, but at the same time, they don't actually solve the problem of the War. And it isn't just a power escalation cycle, like Lensmen or DBZ -- he doesn't level up in each movie to become Even More Powerful to defeat Even Greater Threats.
- Ntrails 1y ago
  Honestly my only positive from the films was the way that they flawlessly melded with the plot from the videogame. Niobe/Ghost covering important plot on my ps2 that just fit around and into scenes from the film. For me that was a complete first. Animatrix also had one of those iirc
Ralfp 1y ago
They are flying over the cloudbs because thats only way to avoid defenses of the Machine City. Matrix 4 introduced „good machines” but didn’t do much of anything with them :|
- pferde 1y ago
  Matrix 4 did not do much of anything with, well, anything. Maybe except for the meta-commentary in the first act where the lead character is hesitant to make a pointless sequel to a popular franchise, but is forced to by his corporate abusers.
  - Cthulhu_ 1y ago
    The Wachowskis weren't forced to, they, as humans, have the power to say "nu-uh". But I suppose they were made an offer they couldn't refuse. Or worse: WB owned the franchise and were going to make a sequel with or without them (or the actors). I'm sure the franchise will get a "hard" reboot at some point.
    - chippiewill 1y ago
      > WB owned the franchise and were going to make a sequel with or without them This is 100% what was going to happen. The film basically tells you this in its meta-commentary.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > I'm sure the franchise will get a "hard" reboot at some point. As the Matrix itself did, according to the Architect.
    - worldsayshi 1y ago
      To me Matrix 4 was sort of an admission by The Wachowskis that while they could create at least one 'perfect' cyberpunk movie, they couldn't really figure out what cyberpunk should lead to - what a good subversion of the genre should look like. It feels like they tried but kind of gave up half way there. Subverting a franchise that people already have such strong and established connection to is probably almost impossible.
animal531 1y ago
When I went to see Terminator 3 I was the only person in the theater, as a result of that I really got that end of the world and being stuck in a bunker atmosphere from the end of the movie.
knicholes 1y ago
It's always sunny above the clouds.
- Hikikomori 1y ago
  Unless it's night.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - knicholes 1y ago
    Or an eclipse, but night and eclipses move on as expected.
worldsayshi 1y ago
A hint at subverting the Cyberpunk genre with Solarpunk. Too bad there hasn't been any genre defining Solarpunk movie yet.
- xnx 1y ago
  > genre defining Solarpunk movie yet Brief moments at the start of Interstellar
- lupusreal 1y ago
  The most genre defining solarpunk media we have right now comes from pharma television commercials pitching antidepressants. Which I think is quite cyberpunk.
  - worldsayshi 1y ago
    So not the yoghurt commercial then? https://youtu.be/z-Ng5ZvrDm4?si=FfRDccxr6aOqumQ9 https://youtu.be/z-Ng5ZvrDm4?si=FfRDccxr6aOqumQ9 Which commercial are you thinking about?
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      Tbh they all blend together into a homogenous mass of cynical corporate messaging to me. Feel-good visuals for you to associate with product.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  >Too bad there hasn't been any genre defining Solarpunk movie yet Twilight! did you see Edward's skin in the sun!? you do realize the fact that you omit this marks you as Team Jacob, so much for your opsec.
MattGrommes 1y ago
I love how that scene looks but it doesn't work for me story-wise. They go up that high to get away from the machines but why wouldn't the machines build up to that level and put in giant solar collectors up there? Seems a lot easier. But it ruins the world they've built up to then so I understand why they didn't go farther with it.
- thehappypm 1y ago
  The machines would easily destroy a city up there. A single ship though could escape
xnx 1y ago
In the right hands (Christopher Nolan?) the Matrix would be an amazing reboot.

ggambetta 1y ago

Likewise, the highway chase in the first non-existent sequel is pretty epic.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Whether or not you enjoy the stories, the action scenes and visuals in the sequels were groundbreaking use of CGI in action films. Around the same time the LotR trilogy came out which did something similar. I rewatched the first one the other day and for the most part the visuals and CGI have held up over time, barely any "oh man this is bad CGI lmao" moments. Which somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this".
- doubleg72 1y ago
  I didn’t think lotr used cgi
  - bigDinosaur 1y ago
    It does, most notably perhaps for things like the Ents and large parts of the battle in RoTK (e.g. Army of the Dead, Oliphaunts). It just did so much practically that it's one of those films where it might be a bit difficult to delineate if you aren't looking closely, similar to films like Fury Road.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    It does, absolutely everywhere? Down to fully CGI characters like Gollum.
  - ekaryotic 1y ago
    the actor that played gandalf ian mckellen? had a minor breakdown on set after he was made to stand on a greenscreen for multiple days.
    - darick 1y ago
      That was on the set of The Hobbit, not LOTR, which used far less CGI
  - trq01758 1y ago
    Andy Serkis was great, but not as good at shape-shifting. For LOTR renderfarm WETA bought a bunch of SGI 1200 dual core Pentium III 700MHz servers with 1GB RAM, 9 GB SCSI disks all running RedHat Linux. I've read at some point they had 192 SGI 1100 and 1200 servers working.
    - jiggawatts 1y ago
      It’s mind blowing that you can rent one VM in the cloud with the same spec. Here’s an example with nearly one kilocores: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/sizes/memory-optimized/mdsv3-vhm-series?tabs=sizebasic https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/siz...
  - thorin 1y ago
    It didn't use anywhere near as much as the hobbit, but lots of things are enhanced. I have a similar problem with Avengers/Marvel which just doesn't look great to me. Avatar did look very good though. The main problem I have with CGI is if the story isn't there, which for me is definitely the case with most Avengers movies which are just a mess.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Gollum? The Balrog? Pre-CGI it looked like this: https://www.galaxus.de/im/Files/1/8/4/9/5/2/0/9/gollum_serkis_on_gondor_set_format.jpg https://www.galaxus.de/im/Files/1/8/4/9/5/2/0/9/gollum_serki...
- iainmerrick 1y ago
  I think the main trick is that they set out to make the best and most impressive movie(s) they could with every tool available -- practical effects, old-school camera angle tricks to make the hobbits look small, hordes of extras and well-crafted props, as well as groundbreaking CGI. Same with Jurassic Park, come to think about it -- there's famously more animatronic dinosaurs in that movie than CGI. As opposed to relying on one shiny new tool to take care of everything. I think with The Hobbit they got over-enamoured with the notion that you can do anything with CGI. More recently, Andor is a good example with its mix of CGI and massive sets; The Mandalorian is a bad example with its over-reliance on the "Volume" LED stage.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > As opposed to relying on one shiny new tool to take care of everything. I think with The Hobbit they got over-enamoured with the notion that you can do anything with CGI. But the visuals are The Hobbit's main selling point. People hate it because of the writing.
    - iainmerrick 1y ago
      I was responding to the parent comment, that the CGI somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this" I agree with that, The Hobbit looked pretty bad. You're right that part of it was the bad writing, but I think it's a vicious circle -- if you're convinced that CGI can make twenty minutes of elf-vs-goblin parkour look cool, you'll write that into the script. If instead you started from the viewpoint of, well, we made a successful movie trilogy out of a famous book trilogy; here's another famous and beloved book by the same author, who even went back and revised it to make it fit with the trilogy -- why don't we just use all the tools at our disposal to put that book on the big screen? Maybe that could have resulted in one really good movie.
      - saalweachter 1y ago
        My nine-year-old seems to enjoy the Hobbit as much as The Lord of the Rings, so part of me suspects that it's just old curmudgeons like me who really dislike it. For me, what grates are the action sequences that feel like they were written for the video game tie in -- the river escape sequence, for instance.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  > the action scenes and visuals in the sequels were groundbreaking use of CGI in action films Well, the innovative scenes vary from the incredibly good highway chase to the boring and ridiculous fight between Neo and Agent Smith. Those movies were groundbreaking in "bad uses of CGI" too.
robertlagrant 1y ago
The moment when he picks them up off the mid-explosion truck gives me chills every time. The build-up is so good.
- wmeredith 1y ago
  Except diesel doesn't explode like that. (I don't know what's wrong with me that I can't just enjoy movies.)
  - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
    It’s computer world diesel. The swapped out for kerosine for efficiency, and the tank was 1/3rd full with a ton of high pressure vapor. Diesel doesn’t “explode”, but it can deflagrate very quickly with the right vapor conditions.
    - saalweachter 1y ago
      Alternatively, we've seen them do things like replace all the doors and windows in a building with bricks when no one's looking. Maybe they loaded the truck up with a variety of explosives as it was driving down the highway.
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    If you don't like that bit you should probably also fast forward the flying guy and the trucktop sword fight!
saalweachter 1y ago
I also like just the idea that Neo being The One and his powers don't quite matter. Sure, he couldn't have done the things he did in the second movie, escape the Merovingian, steal the Keymaker, rescue everyone, etc, without his powers in the Matrix, but at the same time, they don't actually solve the problem of the War. And it isn't just a power escalation cycle, like Lensmen or DBZ -- he doesn't level up in each movie to become Even More Powerful to defeat Even Greater Threats.
Ntrails 1y ago
Honestly my only positive from the films was the way that they flawlessly melded with the plot from the videogame. Niobe/Ghost covering important plot on my ps2 that just fit around and into scenes from the film. For me that was a complete first. Animatrix also had one of those iirc

Ralfp 1y ago

They are flying over the cloudbs because thats only way to avoid defenses of the Machine City. Matrix 4 introduced „good machines” but didn’t do much of anything with them :|

pferde 1y ago
Matrix 4 did not do much of anything with, well, anything. Maybe except for the meta-commentary in the first act where the lead character is hesitant to make a pointless sequel to a popular franchise, but is forced to by his corporate abusers.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  The Wachowskis weren't forced to, they, as humans, have the power to say "nu-uh". But I suppose they were made an offer they couldn't refuse. Or worse: WB owned the franchise and were going to make a sequel with or without them (or the actors). I'm sure the franchise will get a "hard" reboot at some point.
  - chippiewill 1y ago
    > WB owned the franchise and were going to make a sequel with or without them This is 100% what was going to happen. The film basically tells you this in its meta-commentary.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > I'm sure the franchise will get a "hard" reboot at some point. As the Matrix itself did, according to the Architect.
  - worldsayshi 1y ago
    To me Matrix 4 was sort of an admission by The Wachowskis that while they could create at least one 'perfect' cyberpunk movie, they couldn't really figure out what cyberpunk should lead to - what a good subversion of the genre should look like. It feels like they tried but kind of gave up half way there. Subverting a franchise that people already have such strong and established connection to is probably almost impossible.

animal531 1y ago

When I went to see Terminator 3 I was the only person in the theater, as a result of that I really got that end of the world and being stuck in a bunker atmosphere from the end of the movie.

knicholes 1y ago

It's always sunny above the clouds.

Hikikomori 1y ago
Unless it's night.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- knicholes 1y ago
  Or an eclipse, but night and eclipses move on as expected.

worldsayshi 1y ago

A hint at subverting the Cyberpunk genre with Solarpunk. Too bad there hasn't been any genre defining Solarpunk movie yet.

xnx 1y ago
> genre defining Solarpunk movie yet Brief moments at the start of Interstellar
lupusreal 1y ago
The most genre defining solarpunk media we have right now comes from pharma television commercials pitching antidepressants. Which I think is quite cyberpunk.
- worldsayshi 1y ago
  So not the yoghurt commercial then? https://youtu.be/z-Ng5ZvrDm4?si=FfRDccxr6aOqumQ9 https://youtu.be/z-Ng5ZvrDm4?si=FfRDccxr6aOqumQ9 Which commercial are you thinking about?
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Tbh they all blend together into a homogenous mass of cynical corporate messaging to me. Feel-good visuals for you to associate with product.
fsckboy 1y ago
>Too bad there hasn't been any genre defining Solarpunk movie yet Twilight! did you see Edward's skin in the sun!? you do realize the fact that you omit this marks you as Team Jacob, so much for your opsec.

MattGrommes 1y ago

I love how that scene looks but it doesn't work for me story-wise. They go up that high to get away from the machines but why wouldn't the machines build up to that level and put in giant solar collectors up there? Seems a lot easier. But it ruins the world they've built up to then so I understand why they didn't go farther with it.

thehappypm 1y ago
The machines would easily destroy a city up there. A single ship though could escape

xnx 1y ago

In the right hands (Christopher Nolan?) the Matrix would be an amazing reboot.