max314
Posts: 2707
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wilbert
What a humourless person you are, Max. You act like you write all of this stuff in the hope that the Wachowski's will read it and become your friend.
You really defend it way too much. I just don't know why you care so much. If you were defending your own work, I'd say that you were right to do so but this is someone elses work.
I write this stuff because I read stupid comments and feel compelled to point out their stupidity.
What's the problem?
quote:
If you want to know what the flaws are in the sequels, then this might help; they're dull. Whatever about the story being complex/preposterous and difficult to follow/nonsensical it all rests on the fact that the sequels are told in a very dull manner. If all of the detail and logic that you claim is in the sequels is actually there then the Wachowski's have done a terrible job in communicating it because most people find the films to be confusing.
"Dull" is a purely subjective criticism.
You found them dull. I found them rivetting.
But that's not a point worth arguing, because we could sit here for years gonig "it rocks!", "it sucks!", "it rocks!", "it sucks!".
What I tend to pick out are actual technical points with regards to the script, the characters, the structure...tangible technical points that actually have some weight in discourse, and not just the usual "I liked it", "I hated it" bullshit.
I also respond to underhanded personal attacks. That is personal, and I'd rather those kinds of comments didn't exist. But they do. And I have a right to respond.
quote:
I'd also be willing to bet that you didn't watch the sequels and understand every little bit first time round. You probably had to read a lot of supplementary materials to understand what exactly was happening and you shouldn't have to do that. The films should work on their own and the fact that so many people had problems with them shows that they don't.
And what exactly qualifies you to say what a film "should" do?
The Wachowskis are innovators who broken more cinematic ground in one decade than you will probably do in a lifetime. And part of the reason for that is their progressive view that cinema should push itself in brave, new directions. If the Brothers just sat there with your regressive mindset, they wouldn't have made the mark on cinema that they have today.
And no, I didn't understand the films completely on the first viewing. Nor would I expect anyone else to. Which is why I try to steer clear of the fruitless "I liked it", "I hated it" arguments, preferring rather to debate technical points instead. I also think it's stupid when people say "oh, the films had plot holes and flaws!" when they clearly don't know enough about the films to make those quantitative judgements.
So saying "it's shit" is fine. But saying "it has plot holes" is not, because then you're starting to discuss technical points, and you can't do that if you're not fully informed about the technical aspects of the film.
It's pretty fucking simple.
quote:
I know you like to smugly tell people that it's their problem that they can't understand them but I'm as smart as the next guy and I found them to be rambling nonsense written by people who might have claimed to have had a trilogy worked out in advance but clearly didn't.
It's not about being smug.
If someone tells me that 2+2=5, me correcting their mistake and saying "you're wrong...this is the right answer" should be considered a favour. It's more likely your own sense of insecurity if you think "ugh, he's being smug for telling me the truth".
Not saying you're dumb. But not everyone understands everything all of the time. That's why the internet is such a great place for cross-polination and evolution of ideas. If you just close the doors everytime someone offers you a new perspective and accuse them of being smug, then you're failing the first stage of learning - to know that you know nothing. To dissolve your ego. To be prepared to listen.
You can't help or educate someone who doesn't want to be helped or educated.
And, again, you call it "rambling" and insist that the trilogy doesn't work. But these are all purely unsubstantiated, subjective points that simply can't be argued, except for me saying "I disagree". What the fuck kind of a discussion is that?
quote:
Also your argument that parts 2 and 3 are essentially one big movie doesn't wash either.
Again, no substantiation.
Just an empty assertion.
The only thing I can say here is "I disagree".
I've given you a whole in-depth post on the structure of Reloaded and Revolutions to rebuke, and the best you can do is that is "doesn't wash"?
What do you want me to say, except "you're wrong"?
quote:
They are poor films that trade on the good will people had for the first and no amount of fan-boy drooling and Wachowski ass-kissing from you is going to change my mind.
My goal is not to change your mind. I don't mind if it does get changed, and I certainly think it would be in your interest to change it. But it's not my goal.
My goal is simply to put the information out there. So that people who like the films feel it's okay to like Reloaded and Revolutions, and don't have to be stuck in a rut of the narrow-minded, uninformed comments. So that one particular view of the trilogy doesn't become the monopoly. So that people realise it's okay to have an opinion away from the consensus, many of whom simply don't have the strength of will or knowledge to form their own opinion, and so stick with the safe majority like little sheep.
quote:
You're staggeringly blind to the Wachowski's limitations. It's obvious from your signature and your selective use of quotes that ignore the fact that many reviewers don't have much to say that is complimentary beyond the quality of the CGI.
It's the first Wachowski-directed film since The Matrix Trilogy, and I'm bloody excited.
The comments I've posted are the ones that excite me the most and that I like to be reminded of every time I make a post.
And the fact that cinema is primarily a visual medium means that the complements of the film's visuals (which were always going to be the film's forte - the story, like the Indy films, is going to be "set piece driven" and not "plot driven", which is fine by me), is something to be be very excited about.
And what the fuck is it to you, anyway?
_____________________________
MAX
Laying the 314 on your candy ass.
|
Printable Version
Speed Racer... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread