IMO remixes can, if done "well" provide a refreshing / quirky / funkier version of another song.

That's not allowing for the storage medium becoming corrupted. Memory is not infallible, it can degrade with time, be physically damaged or be overwritten by another, false, version.

Eminem vs. Bob the Builder was my favourite. There are also some great not-funny remixes - I really like "Song 2 Smack My b***h Up", which is Blur's "Song 2" mixed in with Prodigy's "Smack My b***h Up". And of course DJ Dangermouse's "Grey Album", which mixes Jay Zee's "Black Album" and the Beatle's "White Album" into something completely new; no new sounds at all have been used that can't be found on the two source albums, but the result is a unique new meme.

OK, I've watched the end of Revolutions... I still don't go for "Machines! APUs! Explosions!..." but it's interesting to me that there really are people like yourself who do.

IMHO Revolutions tries also to be inspirational at the end, though falls short of the ending to The Matrix, which I suppose is my point.

I should probably steer clear of sequels because there are no new ideas to be found here, just extra details (in the form of 'fleshing out the world of the matrix')

True. To me, the end of The Matrix can only lead onto one of a few things:

1. A long drawn out struggle with the machines, slowly wrestling the Matrix from their control (Since there's no way they could take it over/shut it down in one go without killing 90% of the population off)
2. A big battle with the machines, started by the machines themselves. Humans would never start a big battle for the reason given above (Plus they don't have the resources to), but machines have nothing to lose if they wipe out the resisting humans. There are only really two outcomes to this - the machines win and humanity is destroyed, or the battle is drawn and both sides are left weakened (Once again, humans would never strike the death blow because they'd be condemning billions to death). Admittedly I wasn't too hot on the idea of there being a truce, but the way they developed Smith in Reloaded means that that's the only real option because the machines need Zion intact if they are to survive the next rogue agent.

To me, reloaded and revolutions are just playing out the logical ending to The Matrix - so I have no complaints about them. However, if you go to sequels looking for something new all the time, then you will be disappointed.

a lot of CGI and special effects for their own sake (deliberately done in such a way that you're /supposed/ to notice them!).

We're now entering the age where CGI, if done properly, can be unmistakable for real events. I'd have been very disappointed if the CGI was crap, but if they can do it right then I see no reason for them to use it to its full effect

We're now entering the age where CGI, if done properly, can be unmistakable for real events. I'd have been very disappointed if the CGI was crap, but if they can do it right then I see no reason for them to use it to its full effect

No, it's getting stupid, and disappoints. In the original roman epics if there was a massive crowd sequence you knew that they'd got that many extras there. Now they have five blokes wearing different hats that are cut and pasted over the scene. Technically it might be good, but it's unimpressive cinematography.

I felt the over the top CGI worked in the Matrix BECAUSE it was set in a computer world. (I haven't seen 3 so this may actually be incorrect...).

But in, say, Pearl Harbour, the bombs-eye-view sequences didn't feel right. They didn't look unrealistic because of crap rendering or modelling; they looked unrealistic because you simply couldn't do it with a real camera (no matter the expense) so it was obviously fake.

And take evil monsters. In old films it was obviously fake because it was a man in a suit. In new films it's obviously fake because it's a detailed three headed mass of teeth, hairs and gloop. You still have to suspend your disbelief. At least with the man in the suit you knew it existed physically, and in the same room as the actors at the same time. This is why Jim Henson was king.

And take evil monsters. In old films it was obviously fake because it was a man in a suit. In new films it's obviously fake because it's a detailed three headed mass of teeth, hairs and gloop. You still have to suspend your disbelief. At least with the man in the suit you knew it existed physically, and in the same room as the actors at the same time. This is why Jim Henson was king.

Cheers,
Rich.

Jason and the Argonauts

No, it's getting stupid, and disappoints. In the original roman epics if there was a massive crowd sequence you knew that they'd got that many extras there. Now they have five blokes wearing different hats that are cut and pasted over the scene. Technically it might be good, but it's unimpressive cinematography.

But in, say, Pearl Harbour, the bombs-eye-view sequences didn't feel right. They didn't look unrealistic because of crap rendering or modelling; they looked unrealistic because you simply couldn't do it with a real camera (no matter the expense) so it was obviously fake.

And take evil monsters. In old films it was obviously fake because it was a man in a suit. In new films it's obviously fake because it's a detailed three headed mass of teeth, hairs and gloop. You still have to suspend your disbelief. At least with the man in the suit you knew it existed physically, and in the same room as the actors at the same time. This is why Jim Henson was king.

Bring back claymation, thats my favourite.

So what you're saying is, Ray Harryhousen was a charlatan because you wanted a man in a suit doing the skeleton battle or giant statue in Jason and the Argonauts?

Outside. Now.

CLITORIS