Talk:The Matrix Reloaded
|
|
Is it really necessary to list the entire cast? Seems kind of excessive... -- Wapcaplet 17:06 21 May 2003 (UTC)
PS - Especially considering the entire list is copied verbatim from imdb.com (http://us.imdb.com/Credits?0234215). Copyright violation? -- Wapcaplet 17:11 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Possibly slightly but the majority of them are in there because their characters names are simply facinating in that they all have mythological or other significance whitch ties in with the movie itself and it's themes. what better way to explore what the warchowskis where trying to say than this wiki format.
- Hmm, don't remember Wikipedia being about exploring the world of the Warchowski brothers. -- ESP 02:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
PS - sorry i didn't know I changed it the most I thought possible please edit it more if it still is an infringement. but please find a way to include the links already there -Ylbissop 21 May 2003
Actually, listing the entire cast is less likely to be copyright infringment. You can't copyright facts. However, if you perform an editorial function by picking and choosing (or categorizing), then you're exercising some intellectual effort and your results CAN be copyrighted. -- Dwheeler 20:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Since it's a list of facts it cannot be copyrighted. However, including the entire cast is pointless. Wikipedia is a dynamic system, while the cast list is static. It can be linked to with an external link. We can list the most important cast members and link to background articles which discuss the people or myths after which their characters were named. Any discussion of the plot of The Matrix Reloaded should remain in this article, not on the background articles. -- Minesweeper 21:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)
thanks minesweeper-Ylbissop 21 May 2003
This seems non-NPOV to me, anyone else agree?
- While surpassing the first part of the trilogy in terms of special effects, the sequel is firmly rooted in the action genre, and anecdotal evidence suggests that most fans were disappointed by the lack of an imaginative storyline with philosophical implications in Reloaded.
--Dante Alighieri 00:40 22 May 2003 (UTC)
It's certainly POV, and looking at some fan response on the internet, doesn't seem to be true. Certainly, I thought there was an imaginative storyline with philosophical implications in Reloaded. As far as a cast list, I'm not sure why something being "static" means that it's inappropriate for inclusion in the wikipedia. For instance, a list of the Kings of France is static, but we still include that (although there are plenty of external sites that give such a link). john 00:48 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- We have the list of kings because we have articles on all those monarchs. I don't think we'll ever have an article on the guy who played "Security Guard #5" and if visitors really want to know who that actor was, we have the IMDB link. I thought the movie was sort of slow at the beginning, but then all that stuff with the Architect was unexpected. I wouldn't call it predictable. It certainly raised a lot more questions than it answered. I think that statement is POV and needs to be reworded. -- Minesweeper 01:27 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Well...my anecdotal evidence consists of 5 people, all of whom called the plot "too predictable" and "a disappointment, given the high expectations set by The Matrix". Also, if you have a look at e.g. http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0234215, you'll see that all the positive reviews focus on the kung-fu and special effects, while all the negative ones complain about the plot. Mkweise 01:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Mkweise, if you check out the IMDB message boards on the movie, you'll note a fair number of people discussing the intricacies of the plot, and indicating that they thought that it was very interesting. Even the reviews on IMDB are not uniformly as you describe them. Furthermore, five people is pretty lame anecdotal evidence, especially from someone who has apparently not seen the movie. I can give the anecdotal evidence of myself, the person I saw it with, my sister, and a couple of other people I've talked to about it, all of whom though it was pretty good. Also, check out rottentomatoes.com - 75% Fresh in the general mix, 77% fresh among the "cream of the crop". It gets a weaker 62 from metacritic (but I think metacritic is more conceptually unsound, given that they have to give each review a "score" from 1 to 100, which is much more open to debate than rotten tomatoes' "positive" vs. "negative" reviews), but this is still fairly good. And a pretty high percentage of the good reviews don't say that the movie was just good for kung fu and special effects. Certainly, it has been said that all the movie is is kung fu and special effects, and there's been a pretty good share of bad reviews. Not least by Harry Knowles, who usually seems to absolutely adore pretty much any movie he sees. But your statement is far too sweeping, and the movie has gotten its fair share of good reviews, and positive reaction. What should really be said is "while some said bla bla bla [bad stuff], other critics argued that bla bla bla [good stuff]," or vice versa. john 01:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Jlk7e—feel free to have a go at rewording; I'm happy to admit that my summary of Ps of V is sub-optimal. Note that I never said the movie was bad, just that the plot disappointed due to the high standards set by the amazingly brilliant first installment of the trilogy. Mkweise 02:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Mkweise, I'd say that the first movie was simply a very good science fiction movie, and not amazingly brilliant, and that the second movie fully lived up to the standards of the first, with the exception of some lame dullness in the first 45 minutes. I've reworked the paragraph, see what you think. Feel free to edit it further if you think I've tilted too far in one direction. I'd add that the "Plot" section of the article is in serious need of work, in that what's there now seems to have been written before the movie came out, by someone who hasn't seen it. john 02:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)
mkweise, why did you remove reference to "critics"? john 03:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Jlk7e: I changed the two mentions of "critics" to "viewers" and "fans" respectively, because the opinions I described were gathered from random friends, not professional film critics. I reworded "the expansion of the mythology and philosophy of the original film" due to logic issues with that phrase; your subsequent rerewording is fine with me. Mkweise 05:25 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read professional film critics who were disappointed in the film in much the manner you describe (c.f. David Edelstein, Slate). The other comments were mine, not based on the comments of your friends at all, and did not relate to your comment, and did relate to what actual film critics said (Ebert, for instance, didn't seem too impressed with the philosophical stuff in either movie. The Salon reviewer was amazed by the philosophical profundity.) john 05:53 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Should there be a mention about the all the problems during the production? For example, Aaliyah's death, the guy who plays Tank being arrested, etc. -- Erzengel 08:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I recently reworked the bit about piracy and User:MyRedDice partially reverted it, so I thought I had better explain my actions. Initially there was a header ==Pirate Copies Online== (or similar) which to my eyes stuck out as an invitation rather than a piece of information. To try to tone it down, I removed the names of the P2P progs from which the copies can be obtained , but then realised that it would be better to just the remove the header (i.e. the content wasn't iffy after all, just a presentation tweak needed). I should've put the names of the progs back after removing the header. I didn't, but thanks for doing so MyRedDice. Pcb21 15:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- That all makes good sense :) Martin
Afterthought : presumably once the file is on one of these networks, it ends up on all the others pretty quick? Pcb21 15:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The inclusion of the SPOILER notice allows you to tell us everything that happens in the film. don't be shy! please tell. Kingturtle 01:00 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I think there should be two levels of spoiler warning. "soft spoilers" and "spoils everything" ;) E.g. saying that Zion is under attack is somehow a spoiler, but a small one, and the paragraph that mentions that does not spoil much more than that. After I added "or so it seems" it may well become a teaser instead ? --FvdP 20:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Best movie quote of the year so far comes from Merovingian: "cursing in french is like wiping your ass with silk". hehehe. Infantile and POV, I know. Oh, well. B 02:25 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The cast of characters has this line :
Sing Ngai as Seraph (as Collin Chou)
What does the name in brackets supposed to mean ? Jay 11:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- On one level, it means this cast list has been ripped off from IMDb (see above)! It also means that Sing Ngai has changed his name to Collin Chou, probably when he went to Hollywood. In the credits to the film he is listed as Collin Chou - but his real name is Sing Ngai. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is 'climactic' the right word for the freeway chase?