These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

can someone explain the appeal of "the matrix"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Erin Crawford
#41 - 2014-08-04 22:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Erin Crawford
Wow! First this thread, which reminds me I need to watch the movie again Blink
Then Scipio Artelius reminds me I need to watch the Crow again - that had a huge following at the time!
Need to watch The Highlander too, again!
And then Ima Wreckyou reminds me of Shadowrun! I was always the merc-type or the hacker - good times those! And like you said everything was in your head, one needed imagination back then. Big smile



*side edit:

I think we all have movies that stand out for us, probably ones we watched when we were teens - a time we became much more conscious about life, reality and started questioning more aspects about everything than we did before.

As Handar Turiant mentioned The Matrix defined a subculture, just like every generation has one or a couple that do. I remember not really enjoying Easy Rider as much as I thought I would, but then the movie was filmed in an era a little over a decade before I was born.

One movie that came out in '97 which I enjoy more today is The Edge, with Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin. At the time it came out I thought it was O...K, but today I really enjoy much more!

"Those who talk don’t know. Those who know don’t talk. "
Handar Turiant
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2014-08-05 08:38:29 UTC
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:

it has value as a piece of media that expressed the fears and thoughts of its time, but a lot of that value is lost when watched in the context of modern day by someone who didn't get a chance to absorb the gestalt of the late 19th-early 21th century due to being a literal infant at the time. it seems that most people that appreciate it appreciate it as it was when they first saw it because they are nostalgic science fiction dads, but its power as a period-defining work is limited by the fact that it lacks more than entry-level period-trancending insight.


That last sentence: a period defining work can only be such if it transcends the period? Seems like a fairly sizeable contradiction in terms. Don't you mean that it would be a better movie if it contained new insight? As you well know (I assume): most everything is a remix of older stories.

For that matter: I can't appreciate 2001 as well as people who saw it when it first came out. When it did though, it received mixed reviews, and garnered a single Oscar, for it's special effects.

These days of course, it's an absolute cult movie and the photography is brilliant. Along the lines of human interaction though, it's bland at best. It speaks more to grand strokes than it does to real interaction. It influenced the entire generation of filmmakers who came next though: Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese, Scott, etc.

It remains to be seen if the Matrix will have a similar effect on a new generation of filmmakers, but it's legacy is evident in the way hollywood has taken note from the combined success of LotR, Star Wars and the Matrix, and is now releasing more and more trilogies.

I don't want to compare them directly (2001 an the Matrix), 2001 is still the more monumental picture. However, to deny completely any influence the Matrix exerts on current film would be a huge oversight in my opinion. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon wouldn't have been the movie it was without the Matrix. Personally I think it has also opened the way for things like Akira and GitS to be rethought, although that first one never got off the drawing room table because it had to be Americanised by the execs, sadly so. In short: it opened the movie industry once again to more thoughtful sci fi movies, for which it will remain a valuable work. These days we have a great many interesting sci fi pics to watch. A lot of which wouldn't have been made without that 1999 flick
Nathaniel Raynaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-08-05 13:51:19 UTC
Handar Turiant wrote:
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:

it has value as a piece of media that expressed the fears and thoughts of its time, but a lot of that value is lost when watched in the context of modern day by someone who didn't get a chance to absorb the gestalt of the late 19th-early 21th century due to being a literal infant at the time. it seems that most people that appreciate it appreciate it as it was when they first saw it because they are nostalgic science fiction dads, but its power as a period-defining work is limited by the fact that it lacks more than entry-level period-trancending insight.


That last sentence: a period defining work can only be such if it transcends the period? Seems like a fairly sizeable contradiction in terms. Don't you mean that it would be a better movie if it contained new insight? As you well know (I assume): most everything is a remix of older stories.

i phrased that in a weird way; i meant that it was a period defining work but it lacks power overall because it doesn't really transcend the period. compare, for example, a rebours, which expressed the spirit of the decadent movement but still holds up as a work today; my first thought when reading it wasn't "wow things were so crazy back in late 19th century france" but "hey, this is me and my gross hikki friends".

like 2001, the matrix definitely holds an important cultural significance, both in terms of who it influenced and how it reflects its time. but that doesn't really affect its merits as a work in and of itself.

also i was going to write something about "human" scifi like armor and ender's game vs "premise" scifi like ringworld and zelazny's works but then i got distracted and forgot what i wanted to say about it
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
#44 - 2014-08-05 14:23:54 UTC
The presentation blev my away Big smile
The trailer was awesome, the music, the lines and the action scenes and characters felt different from other movies.
I can just start smiling if i hear some of the music from the movie, i guess it just brings me make to my childhood.
Imo alot of cool movies got made in the 90's but some pure garbage too ofc.
Marsha Mallow
#45 - 2014-08-05 20:25:34 UTC
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:
i meant that it was a period defining work but it lacks power overall because it doesn't really transcend the period

Sorry to snip this comment. It's not an out-of-context reply.

As Ima Wreckyou remarked for viewers of that generation The Matrix captured themes they could immediately relate to. It's interesting you mentioned Twin Peaks earlier, because both come from a sub-genre of paranoia-conspiracy that was popular in the late 90s.

Cinematic sci-fi doesn't always retain the original impact partly because of film-making advances, whereas written works can depending upon how relevant the themes remain. Sci-fi dystopian works reflect contemporary concerns in a way that later generations may not be able to fully relate to as contemporaries would. There's also a lot of hype surrounding "cult classics" which should be ignored, always go with your own preference.

Personally, I remember watching The Matrix on release and enjoying it but mentally noting all the elements they'd stolen from other films/writers. Came away feeling underwhelmed and was really surprised by the enthusiasm others showed. A lot of those were closet nerds who had limited sci-fi reading though. So many people remarked they were "blown away" by it I stopped engaging in discussions in case I accidentally started eye-rolling. One thing it did was put nerds centre stage and make them cool for a bit. Which is probably part of my annoyance with the film in the sense that it mainstreamed indy elements by squeezing sexy people into shiny outfits and equipping them with shades. It would have been slightly more credible if they'd focused more on plot/characters/dialogue rather than imagery - but it wouldn't have sold the film.

Generally, that's why books > films. There are elements left to the imagination, the visuals don't 'date' the work so much, there's no reliance upon actors to inhabit the characters, and if the underlying themes retain some relevance it remains accessible for later generations.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Trin Xi
#46 - 2014-08-05 23:38:11 UTC
Good, live-action anime.

You kinda have to like anime for that to sound good.

Post with someone else's main™.
Handar Turiant
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2014-08-06 11:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Handar Turiant
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:
Handar Turiant wrote:
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:

it has value as a piece of media that expressed the fears and thoughts of its time, but a lot of that value is lost when watched in the context of modern day by someone who didn't get a chance to absorb the gestalt of the late 19th-early 21th century due to being a literal infant at the time. it seems that most people that appreciate it appreciate it as it was when they first saw it because they are nostalgic science fiction dads, but its power as a period-defining work is limited by the fact that it lacks more than entry-level period-trancending insight.


That last sentence: a period defining work can only be such if it transcends the period? Seems like a fairly sizeable contradiction in terms. Don't you mean that it would be a better movie if it contained new insight? As you well know (I assume): most everything is a remix of older stories.

i phrased that in a weird way; i meant that it was a period defining work but it lacks power overall because it doesn't really transcend the period. compare, for example, a rebours, which expressed the spirit of the decadent movement but still holds up as a work today; my first thought when reading it wasn't "wow things were so crazy back in late 19th century france" but "hey, this is me and my gross hikki friends".

like 2001, the matrix definitely holds an important cultural significance, both in terms of who it influenced and how it reflects its time. but that doesn't really affect its merits as a work in and of itself.

also i was going to write something about "human" scifi like armor and ender's game vs "premise" scifi like ringworld and zelazny's works but then i got distracted and forgot what i wanted to say about it


I'm sorry.... but comparing a book to a movie just doesn't fly. Wildly different medium.

Having said that, if a work speaks to you personally, it doesn't make it a better or worse piece of culture, nor a period piece: it just hits the right notes to engage you as a personal level.

I think what we have here is a case of the Matrix not speaking to you as a person, which you are projecting on it as a flaw.

At the risk of going off the deep end, and please don't take this personally: from our previous banter, you strike me as a very analytical person, rational to a fault maybe. The thematic input for the Matrix is about something being wrong with the world, out of your control. Stylistically and narratively, it strikes a chord with most every religious prophecy, on a basic level having to do with the insecurities of man. I would venture that these kinds of elements, placed in cyberpunk context and taking heavy teaching from anime, just don't speak to you as a person. They're all very emotional really. Hence, very understandably, it just doesn't punch for you like it does for others.

Or at least, that's what I'm getting from this.

Finally: the matrix still holds up quite well if you ask me. Your original argument was that it was lacklustre at best, lacking in human interaction etc. Wether it 'holds up' to modern day is not relevant to that first statement.
Nathaniel Raynaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-08-06 20:57:44 UTC
Handar Turiant wrote:

At the risk of going off the deep end, and please don't take this personally: from our previous banter, you strike me as a very analytical person, rational to a fault maybe. The thematic input for the Matrix is about something being wrong with the world, out of your control. Stylistically and narratively, it strikes a chord with most every religious prophecy, on a basic level having to do with the insecurities of man. I would venture that these kinds of elements, placed in cyberpunk context and taking heavy teaching from anime, just don't speak to you as a person. They're all very emotional really. Hence, very understandably, it just doesn't punch for you like it does for others.

ok this made me think a lot about why i personally don't like the matrix, so here are a lot of words on the topic

on a purely technical level, i should like the matrix; i’m a religious nutjob who writes essays about evangelion and really likes the cyberpunk aesthetic. i’m usually totally game for disregarding things that most people deem essential in a movie if it feels right (plot is the least important things, good acting/script is very hard to do away with because it is usually responsible for carrying the movie). and my favorite media pieces are the ones where some hapless fellow has to deal with the veneer of everyday, comforting falsehood being stripped away to reveal the cold and terrifying Ultimate Truth. so, when you get down to it, i suppose the reason that i’m not interested in the matrix is because it stares the Ultimate Truth in the face and reacts by shooting at it while doing backflips.

the matrix is a very american film. it is concerned with freedom above all else, which in the movie is represented as an abstract but very desirable thing that doesn’t seem to yield any concrete benefit for anyone. there’s a scene where the guy who wants to re-integrate into the matrix confronts the redpill crew about how being redpilled is actually kind of awful and the machines and humans have a pretty sweet symbiotic relationship going on why ruin it, and though I sort-of-not-really expected them to reply that the Ultimate Truth has wrought havoc on their sense of self and the only way that they could reassert purpose was to wage a pointless war against an entity to whom they were just flesh batteries, i don’t recall them making a particularly strong rebuttal.

compare this to one of my favoritest films ever, videodrome, in which realizing Ultimate Truth doesn’t lead max renn to start a grassroots campaign for awareness of the harmful effects of violent television but shoot himself in the head while his dead girlfriend cheers him on from a tv set. the most powerful idea in the matrix is that reality is an illusion, and then the movie seeks to undermine its enormity by having its cast react in an earnest, idealistic, non-self aware way, practicing slow-motion kung fu and listening to prophecies as if the will of the individual has any hope defeating the machine. the ending of the movie truly highlights the insignificance of their actions; a few robots dead, morpheus just as alive as he was at the start of the movie, and neo more confident in his abilities to fly and catch bullets in midair. but when they challenge the machine empire, the omnipotent, unfeeling engine that has successfully asserted its place in the world for centuries and still holds millions of humans, we’re supposed to feel like there’s hope instead of spiritually crushed.

it’s really weird seeing someone react to hearing the voice of god by saying “well gosh, time to wipe out all the sin on earth and then amass an army to go to war on satan”. even the most proactive of saints limit themselves to fighting the english or getting shot to death by arrows. and most other people just stumble around in wordless horror and then kill themselves or something

tl;dr: i either need to be on more meds or less i can't tell
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#49 - 2014-08-06 21:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Quote:
Truth has wrought havoc on their sense of self and the only way that they could reassert purpose was to wage a pointless war against an entity to whom they were just flesh batteries, i don’t recall them making a particularly strong rebuttal.


This is because they dont want to face the truth, that the machine is better than them, more wise, and why they lost the war? Because they were obsolete. They dont want to face it and accept, because its the saddest thing to consider "I am less capable than this overgrown calculator". They have neo, but he is only human trying to survive his journey thru this life he discovered and he feels strong, but machine has won already with whole humanity, not only one man. Neo is like fly trying to leave the hermetic lightbulb.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Nathaniel Raynaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-08-06 21:42:59 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
Quote:
Truth has wrought havoc on their sense of self and the only way that they could reassert purpose was to wage a pointless war against an entity to whom they were just flesh batteries, i don’t recall them making a particularly strong rebuttal.


This is because they dont want to face the truth, that the machine is better than them, more wise, and why they lost the war? Because they were obsolete. They dont want to face it and accept, because its the saddest thing to consider "I am less capable than this overgrown calculator". They have neo, but he is only human trying to survive his journey thru this life he discovered and he feels strong, but machine has won already with whole humanity, not only one man. Neo is like fly trying to leave the hermetic lightbulb.

well, yes, but the film tries to downplay that as much as possible. i can understand why; film watching would be kind of depressing to most people if the usual protocol for resolving problems like that was mumbling "long live the new flesh" and self-terminating
Marsha Mallow
#51 - 2014-08-07 00:25:21 UTC
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:
tl;dr: i either need to be on more meds or less i can't tell

You don't. You present a valid and articulate perspective. It's possible that your reading and interpretation is deeper than a lot of other people, which makes it hard to have a proper dialogue. I know the sentiment online is to debate and argue these points, but where it's a matter of preference I really don't see any need to, other than to state your position.

I think the point(s) made are fair on both sides. For some books are more satisfying than films; that doesn't mean films can't transcend their original period. But you'll get a skewed response from people who saw it at the time and could relate to it, and unravelling their interpretation might take a while. The CGI fight scenes mentioned earlier were impressive, and definitely influenced later cinematography. I have no real interest in anime, so there were portions of it I probably still haven't fully understood. Likewise, the "Ghost in the Machine" is an iconic sci-fi motif, which some of us disliked seeing hybridised (and simplified) by commercial film-makers.

I'd be interested to read your comments on "Cloud Atlas" Nathaniel, if you've had time to watch it. It's similar to The Matrix in the sense that it borrows heavily from a lot of sources, but I got the impression there was an overt effort to reference those. As opposed to rework and rebrand. There are parts that are clunky (I wasn't keen on the closing scenes) but for some reason it just pleased me overall.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Handar Turiant
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2014-08-07 08:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Handar Turiant
Nathaniel Raynaud wrote:

ok this made me think a lot about why i personally don't like the matrix, so here are a lot of words on the topic

on a purely technical level, i should like the matrix; i’m a religious nutjob who writes essays about evangelion and really likes the cyberpunk aesthetic. i’m usually totally game for disregarding things that most people deem essential in a movie if it feels right (plot is the least important things, good acting/script is very hard to do away with because it is usually responsible for carrying the movie). and my favorite media pieces are the ones where some hapless fellow has to deal with the veneer of everyday, comforting falsehood being stripped away to reveal the cold and terrifying Ultimate Truth. so, when you get down to it, i suppose the reason that i’m not interested in the matrix is because it stares the Ultimate Truth in the face and reacts by shooting at it while doing backflips.

the matrix is a very american film. it is concerned with freedom above all else, which in the movie is represented as an abstract but very desirable thing that doesn’t seem to yield any concrete benefit for anyone. there’s a scene where the guy who wants to re-integrate into the matrix confronts the redpill crew about how being redpilled is actually kind of awful and the machines and humans have a pretty sweet symbiotic relationship going on why ruin it, and though I sort-of-not-really expected them to reply that the Ultimate Truth has wrought havoc on their sense of self and the only way that they could reassert purpose was to wage a pointless war against an entity to whom they were just flesh batteries, i don’t recall them making a particularly strong rebuttal.

compare this to one of my favoritest films ever, videodrome, in which realizing Ultimate Truth doesn’t lead max renn to start a grassroots campaign for awareness of the harmful effects of violent television but shoot himself in the head while his dead girlfriend cheers him on from a tv set. the most powerful idea in the matrix is that reality is an illusion, and then the movie seeks to undermine its enormity by having its cast react in an earnest, idealistic, non-self aware way, practicing slow-motion kung fu and listening to prophecies as if the will of the individual has any hope defeating the machine. the ending of the movie truly highlights the insignificance of their actions; a few robots dead, morpheus just as alive as he was at the start of the movie, and neo more confident in his abilities to fly and catch bullets in midair. but when they challenge the machine empire, the omnipotent, unfeeling engine that has successfully asserted its place in the world for centuries and still holds millions of humans, we’re supposed to feel like there’s hope instead of spiritually crushed.

it’s really weird seeing someone react to hearing the voice of god by saying “well gosh, time to wipe out all the sin on earth and then amass an army to go to war on satan”. even the most proactive of saints limit themselves to fighting the english or getting shot to death by arrows. and most other people just stumble around in wordless horror and then kill themselves or something

tl;dr: i either need to be on more meds or less i can't tell


Interesting points. To be fair though, Evangelion has it's fair share of Pew Pew and Backfips, so I'd say that point is kind of moot.

Of course you are right: The Matrix is a very American film, made to fit a lot of Hollywood convention. It takes a lot of cues from Anime (Ghost in the Shell, Alita, etc.).

I get the sense you've only watched the first one though? It becomes clear in the 3rd movie that it isn't all that pointless at all.

You quoted A Rebours though, which is perhaps kind if indicative of why you don't really like the Matrix. You specifically mention the fallacy of the will of the individual having any hope of overcoming the Ultimate Truth. Which is entirely in line with Schopenhauer (The philisopher which Huysmans adored). Any human will is an evil which can only ethically be abstained from through aestethicism and ascetic behaviour. An almost buddhist philosophy. Jean des Esseintes essentially attempts to live out Schopenhauers rejection of the will, through contemplation. He ultimately fails though. Man is still subject to will: Jean returns to Paris, with a heavy heart.

The Matrix is is an antithesis of Schopenhauer, and follows along more Christian lines than Buddhist ones: the will of the one, and only The ONE, ultimately overcomes (through a lot of backflips). Will is not a base instinct, but provides the agency needed to overcome this ultimate truth. Thus the Matrix (and by extension it's very cultural American nature) contradict Schopenhauer heavily.

Could it be that you perhaps subscribe to Schopenhauers vision? Your favourite media pieces seem to subscribe to his mentality: strip away everything, and you see that any will or desire is at every level something entirely useless. Stop flailing against enormity: accept the inevitable. Videodrome also subscribes to this philosophy, from your description, but I haven’t seen it to be honest.

So, on the basest level, the Matrix believes that human desire, will, can be a force for good. Perhaps you subscribe to a very different philosophical school, such that the movie in itself is false on the most primary level for you. Kant vs Schopenhauer through movies :-)

In closing: I'm not arguing any perspective or opinion is wrong, just that they take a different fundamental philosophical principle as leading. This doesn't make the Matrix better or worse, just different.
Marcus Gord
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2014-08-07 09:49:18 UTC
Unfortunately no one can be told what the appeal of The Matrix is. You must experience it for yourself.....

Free your mind.

Cool

In a few moments you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed to your conscious awareness.

http://i.imgur.com/LM2NKUf.png
Pepper Swift
Perkone
Caldari State
#54 - 2014-08-07 10:05:36 UTC
ill take the green pill

What I need most.. is a day between Saturday and Sunday...

If life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic
Handar Turiant
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-08-07 11:54:32 UTC
Pepper Swift wrote:
ill take the green pill


The Kale is a LIE!
Pepper Swift
Perkone
Caldari State
#56 - 2014-08-07 11:57:02 UTC
@Handar Turiant

these are delicious

What I need most.. is a day between Saturday and Sunday...

If life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic
Adunh Slavy
#57 - 2014-08-07 12:51:10 UTC
Handar Turiant wrote:

Very true, but I'd hardly call the trilogy vulgar. Compared to 99% of Hollywood output it's everything but vulgar.



Vulgar as in, common, basic, mundane. I used the phrase "triumph of vulgarity" as a loose reference to a book by the same name, written by Robert Pattison. It speaks to the parallels between pop-music and 19th century Romanticism.

Shallow characters that are easy to understand, shallow relationships between the characters - the less complicated these aspects are, the more time the audience can spend contemplating other aspects of the story, such as living your life inside a mainframe.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Handar Turiant
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-08-07 13:52:23 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Handar Turiant wrote:

Very true, but I'd hardly call the trilogy vulgar. Compared to 99% of Hollywood output it's everything but vulgar.



Vulgar as in, common, basic, mundane. I used the phrase "triumph of vulgarity" as a loose reference to a book by the same name, written by Robert Pattison. It speaks to the parallels between pop-music and 19th century Romanticism.

Shallow characters that are easy to understand, shallow relationships between the characters - the less complicated these aspects are, the more time the audience can spend contemplating other aspects of the story, such as living your life inside a mainframe.


Understood. Thought you meant vulgar as in: tasteless, gross, crass, unrefined, tawdry, ostentatious, flamboyant, over-elaborate, overdone, showy, flashy, gaudy, garish, brassy, kitsch, tinselly, flaunting, glaring, brash, loud, harsh etc.

Nathaniel Raynaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2014-08-07 16:32:57 UTC
Handar Turiant wrote:

Interesting points. To be fair though, Evangelion has it's fair share of Pew Pew and Backfips, so I'd say that point is kind of moot.

nge has a lil bit of something for everyone. giant ninja robot action, hot anime babes, a suicidally depressed director who hated pretty much all of his fans and especially the ones who were in it for the hot anime babes, and all sorts of neat angels. but i'd say that the main motif wasn't "shinji ikari pilots his robot mom to victory while winning the love of (insert favorite anime babe here)" but "shinji ikari is pushed into fulfilling the endless demands of a society that he feels nothing for except fear and despair while failing to build meaningful relationships with women or his peers".
Handar Turiant wrote:
I get the sense you've only watched the first one though? It becomes clear in the 3rd movie that it isn't all that pointless at all.
maybe! but i've gotten the impression that all the matrix films past the first one are kind of shoddy so idk if i really want to continue the Matrix Experience

Handar Turiant wrote:
The Matrix is is an antithesis of Schopenhauer, and follows along more Christian lines than Buddhist ones: the will of the one, and only The ONE, ultimately overcomes (through a lot of backflips). Will is not a base instinct, but provides the agency needed to overcome this ultimate truth. Thus the Matrix (and by extension it's very cultural American nature) contradict Schopenhauer heavily.

while the driving idea behind christianity seems to be overcoming evil through the power of will, there are many sects they seem to base their philosophy after the idea that "god is all powerful and pretty much incomprehensible, so lets try to live by his rules and hope he does't decide to damn us for whatever reason". but otherwise, yea, i think your analysis is pretty spot on.

Marsha Mallow wrote:
I'd be interested to read your comments on "Cloud Atlas" Nathaniel, if you've had time to watch it. It's similar to The Matrix in the sense that it borrows heavily from a lot of sources, but I got the impression there was an overt effort to reference those. As opposed to rework and rebrand. There are parts that are clunky (I wasn't keen on the closing scenes) but for some reason it just pleased me overall.

this looks like an interesting film, thanks for the recommendation!

on a sort of related note i'd definitely suggest videodrome to anyone who doesn't mind a lil "unnecessary" gore (imho there's a perfect amount and it's all top-teir stuff, but my "perfect" is someone else's "gratuitous") the trailer very understated and nice in its own way, but only captures one facet of the movie.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#60 - 2014-08-07 17:15:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Quote:
human desire, will, can be a force for good


Neo was the chosen one. he wished and his wish come true. At the end he sacrificed himself. like Jesus. For the good of many stupid, unchosen ones that probably would start to slain themselves 5 minutes after his death. Lol

If we are discussing the whole thing.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!