I always found that really dubious. Humans provide more energy than say, hydro? Geothermal? Leaving Earth entirely, making soalr available once more? Doubtful.
Skynet Versus The Matrix
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
In case no one mentioned it yet, both the matrix and terminator are works of fiction. It's not a matter of realism. Like a Mario vs Luigi scenario.
Fiction doesn't necessarily mean we throw all logic out the window. We can suspend our disbelief only so far. I can accept the underlying premise of The Matrix, that we're living in an illusory world created by machines. The McGuffin to get us there is quite dubious though. I think it might have been more compelling if we'd done it to ourselves in a desperate attempt to survive after desroying our planet, but the machines became self-aware and decided they preferred to keep us that way.
That's a large part of what made The Terminator films so great - before the latest. There was very little suspension of disbelief. Once you accept time travel, and that the machines took over in the future, it's a pretty straightforward story that plays with the Grandfather Paradox. There's nothing in it that's inherently unbelieveable. In The Matrix, there is.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I thought time travel was proven to be theoreticaly impossible. Something about not being able to go faster than the speed of light. I dunno, we need someone who knows about that to confirm/deny.
What i never liked about the terminator films is that they were boring universes. (i only saw Terminator 1-3 so they might not be so boring afterall
) And if something is boring it is not fit to rule the world - that's in the bible.I think time travel is theoretically possible, if you have a naked singularity. not too sure on that. Besides, time travel is far more plausible, if not possible, than The Matrix's solution.I thought time travel was proven to be theoreticaly impossible. Something about not being able to go faster than the speed of light. I dunno, we need someone who knows about that to confirm/deny.
What i never liked about the terminator films is that they were boring universes. (i only saw Terminator 1-3 so they might not be so boring afterall
And I don't see how you found The Terminator universe boring. It's a very interesting, action-packed trilogy.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Baal are you referring to Terminator 3 as the bad movie, or the one that just came out?
The one that just came out. Terminator: Salvation, I think it was called. Terminator 3 wasn't as good as 2, but it was still a decent film.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I don't consider mindless action films that intresting.
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
Neither do I, hence my disgust at the recent film. The Terminator films were far more than just mindless action. They were exactly what action films are meant to be like; the action results from a clever story, and is always completely logical, and within the realm of believability - though obviously stretched. Die Hard, Aliens, Lethal Weapon 2, those are all good action films. Die Hard 4.0, The Matrix: Reloaded and Revolutions, Romeo Must Die, those are not, because the action is gratuitous, rather than resulting from the story.
Action should add to the story, not replace it. When it adds to a story, it can be very, very entertaining. The best part of 2001: A Space Odyssey, was the bit in the middle with Hal. Why? Because it was suspenseful. But would it have been as good without the action component? Of course not. The best scene from the new Star Wars films was the absolutely kickarse fight between Jango Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Was the scene unnecessary for the continuation of the story? Of course it was, Obi-Wan didn't need to fight Jango. But it was a hell of a lot more interesting than if he didn't.
Action used wisely is one of the best things in film. The final gunfight in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid comes to mind. When used poorly - Star Trek 11 - it can be one of the worst things in film. The Terminator Trilogy did action better tahn most. They can hardly be termed mindless.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
The Matrix is just a glorified battery.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I see what you mean - maybe i shouldn't have used the word mindless as lightly for the terminator movies - especially considering the current state of the movie industry.
But i dont think the discussion here is about how using action can make a movie good or bad.
You said at one point:
"And I don't see how you found The Terminator universe boring. It's a very interesting, action-packed trilogy."
Maybe it's just me here, but i dont think action contributes much to a certain fictional universe. For example - i dont see how a 5-minute fight can contribute to that universe. Don't get me wrong, that fight can be awesome (as it should be!) but it will not affect how i see that universe (intresting or not).
Let's take the Mortal Kombat universe for a moment. Yes it has a backstory and everything it's not just some guys getting together and fighting. That universe is boring, it might have a few intresting moments but it really is boring and unintresting. That didnt make the first movie less awsome. (when i was a kid! - i'm afraid to watch the movie now because i'll think it sucks too hard)
Yea my example sucks but i couldnt think of a better one.
Anyway what i was trying to show with it is that while the Terminators were nice as movies, the mainstory and backstory didn't impress me enough to think their universe is cool. (i am using a past tense because i don't remember most of the details even of the main plot, i only remembered my reaction to said movies/plots)
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Skynet can travel back in time and disinvent the Matrix.
Boo-ya, suckers.
My god, I love that movie. HAL is indeed an interesting character. I'm his biggest fan.
Boo-ya, suckers.
Kind of funny how untrusting we humans have become of computers...anyone remember the 70s TV show Buck Rogers? The human race is ruled by computers like Dr. Theopolis who was carried around by a cute little robot named Twiki. Supposedly since humans were unable to rule themselves peacefully computers were created to rule for them. Now we have Skynet and the Matrix where computers are evil. Of course the popularity of the whole evil computer thing probably started with Hal 9000.
My god, I love that movie. HAL is indeed an interesting character. I'm his biggest fan.
I see your point now as well, though I actually think The Terminator backstory - before they ruined it with that stupid series and the new film - is quite good. It's certainly among the best action-sci-fi I've ever seen, though Aliens takes the prize, despite being inferior to the first film. i also quite enjoyed the main story, especially in the second film.I see what you mean - maybe i shouldn't have used the word mindless as lightly for the terminator movies - especially considering the current state of the movie industry.
But i dont think the discussion here is about how using action can make a movie good or bad.
You said at one point:
"And I don't see how you found The Terminator universe boring. It's a very interesting, action-packed trilogy."
Maybe it's just me here, but i dont think action contributes much to a certain fictional universe. For example - i dont see how a 5-minute fight can contribute to that universe. Don't get me wrong, that fight can be awesome (as it should be!) but it will not affect how i see that universe (intresting or not).
Let's take the Mortal Kombat universe for a moment. Yes it has a backstory and everything it's not just some guys getting together and fighting. That universe is boring, it might have a few intresting moments but it really is boring and unintresting. That didnt make the first movie less awsome. (when i was a kid! - i'm afraid to watch the movie now because i'll think it sucks too hard)
Yea my example sucks but i couldnt think of a better one.
Anyway what i was trying to show with it is that while the Terminators were nice as movies, the mainstory and backstory didn't impress me enough to think their universe is cool. (i am using a past tense because i don't remember most of the details even of the main plot, i only remembered my reaction to said movies/plots)
Did you see the second film first, or at least know Arnie's work as a hero before watching the films? I saw the movies in order, and didn't know jack about Arnie except for Predator - another badarse action flick - so the story in Judgement Day, where you think he's the villian right up until he starts shooting the T-1000, hooked me quite well. Most people I talk to about it seem surprised that someone could even think for a second that Arnie was the bad guy.
Mortal Kombat's actully a pretty good example. It's a lot of fun to watch some of the fights, but the actual story is terrible. Funnily enough, I think a lot of modern games actually have better stories than films do. Red Alert immediately comes to mind, as do Starcraft and Warcraft.
As for fights adding to a universe; it's pretty damn rare. The Matrix: Reloaded is a great example of a fight being completely bloody meaningless and doing nothing for the film. An example of a fight that adds to a universe might be Luke Skywalker cutting off his father's hand. Action that adds to a universe is usually based around a single character's story arc, rather than the universe as a whole, as with the Star Wars example above. I can't think of an example of it doing the reverse, but it does have a place in character development. That's why the best action in the Terminator films involved Sarah Connor, rather than the emotionless cyborgs.
I'm not convinced that the Matrix & Skynet are different things: just the same thing at different timepoints.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The Matrix hands down. It has destroyed the human race 5 tmes, aloowing only a few people to survive. Skynet did not do a good job, since it was destroyed by the humans, even though it killed lots of them, but it ultimately failed.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Credit that to good casting. It's hard not to imagine Arnold as anything other than a robot.
What's so bad about T4, and what makes T3 so much better?
I thought T4 was better than T3 and a decent movie. It's no T2, but nothing could be T2.
It would be awesome if the film writers made that true. I'd absolutely love the nitpicking.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I dont recall the order in which is saw them. I was aware of Arnie's other films and always saw him as the good guy yes.
P.S. Predator and Aliens are awsome too.
Agree on all accounts.
It's good to know at least someone actually noticed the stories that the Blizzard peeps made for Starcraft and Warcraft ; not just WOO MULTIPLAYER. I didnt count anything from WoW btw, anything from there doesnt count.
The Matrix. Both "revolutions" took place in the 1990s. Skynet has had only 40 or so years at best to secure its place and develop new technology. Matrix AI, on the other hand, has had a few centuries. They are surely far more advanced and more thoroughly spread throughout the world.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
The Matrix. Wouldn't matter that Skynet has nukes. Radiation has no effect on mechanical components and electronics can be shielded from the EMP as evidenced in the Robot Renaissance. It also evidences that the pre-Matrix had a well established economy that rivaled all the human nations combined, not to mention that it is capable of drastic adaptation from when the human nations blotted out the sky. The level of technology and production capabilities the Matrix has would easily overwhelm Skynet.
