Honestly, I might have liked to see an updated version of the film (basically just with a cooler Gort - like, one that moved occasionally), but I can't imagine Keanu Reeves being the right man for the task.
Maybe they should let Keanu play Gort: he has the range (the original Gort was played by a fibreglass statue in most scenes; they only used Lock Martin in a rubber suit when they needed Gort to walk), but not the imposing presence.
we3_pirate said:
most of the philosphy mumbo-jumbo that was in it was seen elsewhere, but it's treated as if it's ground-breaking.
By whom? Everyone knows the philosophy of "what is real" isn't new, but that doesn't make it any less important. The Matrix was "groundbreaking" in its visuals, which still to this day stand up as spectacular (despite the flat 3D rendering and the canvas city backdrop). Bullet-time has had a tremendous impact on cinema special effects. And people can claim that the "what is real" philosophy of The Matrix is juvenile and unimportant, but it's still the single most important philosophical question we as a civilization can ask.
Besides, The Matrix is fucking awesome.
See this is the problem right here. It's almost a decade since the first movie came out and people can still get away with saying that The Matrix was awesome because it asked "what is real."
Have you really gone the majority of a decade without pursuing any of it any further? Without discovering the metaphysical underpinnings the movies took from Hinduism, Neo-Platonism, and Gnostic Christianity or reading the comic books and novels that the Wachowskis stole from liberally to cobble the franchise from?
I wasn't particularily urbane, hip, or well read when The Matrix came out (I was also in junior high), so I can empathize with the idea that we all need some window dressing to make the really important stuff look sexy, but these things bear more investigation and effort than a single Hollywood movie can provide.
And really? Fuck "what's real," anyway because after that grand epiphany you still have bills to pay, food to eat, and sex to have whether you're plugged into some giant power plant or a butterfly dreaming. Navel gazing is the best way to miss out on what's really important.
A) I have just imagined you laughing at improbable physics in your underpants, and my brain exploded from the geeky hotness of it all.
B) Hollywood is in the middle of what I call 'the CGI race'... think of it as an arms race of special effects technology. As if 'SF' in movies didn't already just mean 'action movie in space' or 'horror movie in space'. (although sometimes that works out.. see 'Alien'). Like any other arms race, the first casualty is restraint. Everybody's trying to outdo each other... the bigger the explosion, the more improbably fast the car/plane/spaceship/pod chase through the trench/canyon/tunnel/city street, the better. You're seeing the same forces at work in straight up horror too... resulting in the current wave of 'torture porn' movies.
Add to this the fact that they're addicted to the three act structure, boy-meets girl romantic formula, and the happy ending. And the ticket buying public loves it, because they don't read or think all that often, and wouldn't know who Ursula K. Le Guin was if you hooked them up to the fucking Augmentor.
I gave up expecting 'hard SF' values from movies or tv... they just don't share those values because their audience is undereducated. It all boils down to financial consideratons. They want the money of the 'ooooh... aaaah.... pritty colors!' crowd because that's a bigger crowd.
I'm up for it. I never made it through Johnny Mnemonic, but why blame Keannu or the person who cast him? Blame the dude that cast Ice-T and Henry Rollins in the same movie. Hell, blame William Gibson himself. I liked Neuromancer, but that wasn't it.
I like Keannu in his correct element, and I think that's Sci-Fi. Hating on the Matrix movies is kinda silly. So is hating on Transformers for that matter. As for the Core, well, that I get.
The day the Earth Stood Still is a pretty good movie, and I think Hollywood (or all the other fine filmmakers commenting on this article) should find other great movies from a time almost forgotten and re-make them. Give them new life. Modernize them if need be. And if the damn scene calls for it, let them use Bullet-Time. Or invent another revolutionary camera technique that suits the scene, the picture, or the Director's whim. They're just movies, people.
I'm actually dying to see it. I bet I would totally like it. This has been on my list for a long time, it just always gets bumped for something I actually do want to see.
I'm actually dying to see it. I bet I would totally like it. This has been on my list for a long time, it just always gets bumped for something I actually do want to see.
The science is horrible. The computer "hacking" even worse. But it's no worse a plot than any other disaster movie.
Carbonfreeze said:
So is hating on Transformers for that matter.
I find hating on Transformers to be a very enjoyable pass-time and intend to engage in it at every given opportunity.
I know.
Good write up on your blog. I just don't agree.
I used to plan my mornings to try and get out the door before Beast Wars started or I'd surely leave a half-hour late. I really enjoyed it, and it was a pretty terrible cartoon.
I loved the movie. -and kinda baited you on purpose. My bad.
we3_pirate said:
most of the philosphy mumbo-jumbo that was in it was seen elsewhere, but it's treated as if it's ground-breaking.
By whom? Everyone knows the philosophy of "what is real" isn't new, but that doesn't make it any less important. The Matrix was "groundbreaking" in its visuals, which still to this day stand up as spectacular (despite the flat 3D rendering and the canvas city backdrop). Bullet-time has had a tremendous impact on cinema special effects. And people can claim that the "what is real" philosophy of The Matrix is juvenile and unimportant, but it's still the single most important philosophical question we as a civilization can ask.
Besides, The Matrix is fucking awesome.
See this is the problem right here. It's almost a decade since the first movie came out and people can still get away with saying that The Matrix was awesome because it asked "what is real."
Have you really gone the majority of a decade without pursuing any of it any further? Without discovering the metaphysical underpinnings the movies took from Hinduism, Neo-Platonism, and Gnostic Christianity or reading the comic books and novels that the Wachowskis stole from liberally to cobble the franchise from?
I wasn't particularily urbane, hip, or well read when The Matrix came out (I was also in junior high), so I can empathize with the idea that we all need some window dressing to make the really important stuff look sexy, but these things bear more investigation and effort than a single Hollywood movie can provide.
And really? Fuck "what's real," anyway because after that grand epiphany you still have bills to pay, food to eat, and sex to have whether you're plugged into some giant power plant or a butterfly dreaming. Navel gazing is the best way to miss out on what's really important.
Personally, I was thinking of the Descartian motto "Cogito Ergo Sum" and the cave story (the one where the guy gets out and discovers this whole new world beyond the cave) when I wrote my original post.
And thank you for pointing out that no one looks any deeper into it. When the first movie came out, I was psyched and looked up all the different things that inspired it. And I'm still reading up on some of it.
I'm actually dying to see it. I bet I would totally like it. This has been on my list for a long time, it just always gets bumped for something I actually do want to see.
The science is horrible. The computer "hacking" even worse. But it's no worse a plot than any other disaster movie.
I'm actually dying to see it. I bet I would totally like it. This has been on my list for a long time, it just always gets bumped for something I actually do want to see.
The science is horrible. The computer "hacking" even worse. But it's no worse a plot than any other disaster movie.
It was pretty entertaining for what it was.
Cool. I won't bump it again. I may even move it up a few slots.
thanks.
I reserve the right to hate you at a later date.
Put down the camera.
Back away slowly.
Keep your hand in view.
Nobody has to get hurt.
The movie was a product of its time. It was the US vs. THEM concepts of the earlier years of the cold war. MAD was a fresh concept. The intent of the movie was to change the us vs. them dynamic and consider the earth in a macro sense vs. the rest of the populated galaxy. The general concept of "feel free to kill yourselves - that is your problem. When you gain the capability to export your killing to the stars you be come our problem."
How would you reimagine that into the present day? The vast majority of the world's population was born after the end of WWII. Nuclear weapons have been a fixture in their worlds. Would the concepts of the movie have the same impact with an audience that accepts nuclear weapons as a fact of life?
ZPO said:
Do not mess with "The Day The Earth Stood Still".
Put down the camera.
Back away slowly.
Keep your hand in view.
Nobody has to get hurt.
The movie was a product of its time. It was the US vs. THEM concepts of the earlier years of the cold war. MAD was a fresh concept. The intent of the movie was to change the us vs. them dynamic and consider the earth in a macro sense vs. the rest of the populated galaxy. The general concept of "feel free to kill yourselves - that is your problem. When you gain the capability to export your killing to the stars you be come our problem."
How would you reimagine that into the present day? The vast majority of the world's population was born after the end of WWII. Nuclear weapons have been a fixture in their worlds. Would the concepts of the movie have the same impact with an audience that accepts nuclear weapons as a fact of life?
Well, that was the intent of the movie, but if you look closely at it, there's also a different angle. Spoiler for a 50-year-old movie:
For all their, "we're your alien benefactors" talk, Klaatu's people were really slaves to their robot guardians. They had sacrificed their freedom for security.
There's plenty of room for a modern remake exploring that angle in a way that's relevant to modern situations and audiences.
apesamongus said:
Well, that was the intent of the movie, but if you look closely at it, there's also a different angle. Spoiler for a 50-year-old movie:
For all their, "we're your alien benefactors" talk, Klaatu's people were really slaves to their robot guardians. They had sacrificed their freedom for security.
There's plenty of room for a modern remake exploring that angle in a way that's relevant to modern situations and audiences.
That movie would probably not star Keanu Reeves.
Ssssshhhhhh! Don't tell anyone that one. If you put that spin on it we're going to end up with "Enemy of the State from Outer Space" starring Will Smith.
apesamongus said:
Well, that was the intent of the movie, but if you look closely at it, there's also a different angle. Spoiler for a 50-year-old movie:
For all their, "we're your alien benefactors" talk, Klaatu's people were really slaves to their robot guardians. They had sacrificed their freedom for security.
There's plenty of room for a modern remake exploring that angle in a way that's relevant to modern situations and audiences.
That movie would probably not star Keanu Reeves.
I did not see that in the movie at all.
While I see that as a possible view of it, I don't remember that ever being even a subtle part... then again I might have overlooked it.
I should definitely watch it again.
From a non-fictional standpoint though, I would agree with their decision.
One can always view increase of control and rules as "slavery". But all it does (hopefully) is limit options. Options that are probably not a good thing to have, hence why you forfeited them.
Hey Flux give him his due, Keanu , i mean. I don't think he will do well in this role, i don't think he's a good lead but come on Scanner Darkly went well. Its all about the people making the film. Now I don't think this film will stand up to much but I'll forgive him almost everything for Bill and Ted.
As an aside are there any more PKD films in the pipeline? I was hoping there would not be until Scanner Darkly but with great directors like Linklater, you get great films.
Could be worse; they could try to be remaking "Rebel Without a Cause" with, say, Freddie Prince Jr, Mathew Lillard and Lindsey Lohan. Now _THAT_ would be a fuckin disaster.
mandaglione
Australia
July 2007
AUG 29, 2007 01:06 AM