Don't know if you've seen "The Matrix Reloaded" yet, but if not you should. Anyway, as I stated in my entry last week about the movie, if you were confused by it, see it again. I've talked to a bunch of people about it so far and it does seem like there is a lot of confusion about what was going on there, especially in the end of the movie. If you've seen the movie, then by all means read this, because it is a masterful analysis of the symbolism of the movie and just a good explanation about what exactly happened, specifically what The Architect and Neo were talking about, and what it meant and what it will mean. Really a great read, I would say its a must read for someone who saw the movie once and plans to see it again. Don't read it if you haven't seen the movie yet, obviously, unless you like to have the plot spoiled for you.
In other Matrix news, I read online today that there is a rumor that "Reloaded" will be released in Large Format (IMAX) on June 6th. That's unconfirmed though, and nobody's selling tickets for it on that date yet, but rest assured I will be checking regularly and will be getting tickets as soon as they're on sale. I can't wait to see it again, but don't want to risk ruining the IMAX experience by seeing it too many times before seeing it there. This will serve as a test run for me, because "The Matrix Revolutions" will be released simultaneously on both Large Format and the standard 35mm theater prints, so I am gonna wanna know which is the preferred way to view the movie. I'm guessing it will be on IMAX, but you never know.
A little more movie news for you, "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" will be out for sale on DVD on August 26th. This is the 2 disc version which will have a 10 minute look into "Return of the King." The 4 disc version of "Two Towers" will be out on November 18th. This 4-disc version will feature a new cut of the movie with an additional 43 minutes of footage, bringing the total running time to 3 hours, 42 minutes. That means with both of the first two parts and their full cuts, the first two-thirds of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is running at somewhere around 7 and a half hours. Once the whole thing is there (November 2004, presumably) the full running time should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 and a half hours. Wow.
Comments (1)
So here's a little annectode for you concerning this entry. Dave calls me this afternoon and says "Dude! Have you had a chance to read Brian's blog today?" Since I had, and saw that he posted a link to the same article I had about explaining the Matrix, and since when I'd seen Brian's post I noted it came about 12 hours after mine, I got mildly annoyed in a totally good-natured way (trust me, my ego is nowhere near big enough to actually get offended by something like this). So I told Dave "What the fuck, you don't read my blog anymore? If you haven't noticed, I've had that same article up for longer than Brian did. First you don't notice the F Grover shirts, now this? lol" (I put 'lol' there cause I laughed, not cause I said 'lol').
Now mind you, I don't think I'm some whiz kid for finding this article, cause shit, I just got it off of Daypop like probably a bazillion other people did too, and just like Brian no doubt did (Dave's not a regular reader of Daypop, by the way). But then tonight I go to Jason's blog and see he's got the article there, and a "courtesy of Brian" link attached (by the way Jason, if you're reading this, which you probably aren't, but it looks like you've got your right column set to 100%, ensuring you have to scroll over no matter how big you make the window, just FYI).
Ok, some random thoughts on this comment:
1) What prompted this? Nothing really. I thought about it when I talked to Dave of course, then forgot till I saw the same thing on Jason's blog just now, and felt like writing out something on it. Since I wanna leave the Mr. Terrible G thing at the top of my blog for now, and since it pertained to this post, here is the addendum to it.
2) I'm now worried I'm gonna catch flak for this, cause you can't hear tone of voice in print (unless you're a better writer than I am, which you probably are). But this is totally not a real issue with me, so nobody get their panties in a twist over it. I'm just acting all huffy to be ironical, like I wrote the damn thing, when the truth is I just stole the link from somewhere else too. If I'd actually discovered this totally on my own, then I'd be pissed ;-)
Posted by Yams | May 20, 2003 8:19 PM
Posted on May 20, 2003 20:19