Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Matrix Media Movies

Ten-disc 'Matrix' DVD Box Set Planned 530

Posted by CmdrTaco from the throw-away-the-revolutions-discs dept.
squishey writes "The Matrix trilogy is to be released as part of a special ten-disc DVD boxset in time for Christmas, according to the DVD Times. Out on December 12 and with an RRP of 44.99." Includes a lot of stuff you probably already own, and a few things you might want... like a version of Reloaded with the Enter the Matrix footage included.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ten-disc 'Matrix' DVD Box Set Planned More

Ten-disc 'Matrix' DVD Box Set Planned

Comments Filter:

  • 44.99 != $ (Score:5, Informative)

    by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <strictfoo-slashd ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:20AM (#9621854) Homepage Journal
    That's not $44.99, it's 44.99, which is what, ~$75-80?

    • Re:44.99 != $ (Score:5, Informative)

      by julesh ( 229690 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:24AM (#9621907)
      Do you mean GBP 44.99? (Slashdot eats pound signs)

    • Re:44.99 != $ (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rshidla ( 741316 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:25AM (#9621915)
      As and American living in the UK, I would guess that when the set is released in the US it will be $44.99. Most new release DVDs sell for 19.99 here as they sell for $19.99 in the US.

    • Re:44.99 != $ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by katorga ( 623930 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:26AM (#9621928)
      The first Matrix was great and I own it on DVD. The second was so bad that I never got the DVD and never even bother to see the 3rd installment in the theater.

      • Yep (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Nugget ( 7382 ) * on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:34AM (#9622036) Homepage
        I had the same reaction. I stopped caring about these films after seeing the second one in the theater. I've never seen the third one either.

        • Re:Yep (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:37AM (#9622062)
          There was a second one?

        • Re:Yep (Score:3, Funny)

          by Fred_A ( 10934 )
          I didn't want to see the third one either but those bastards at Aeromexico forced me to watch it during my flight back to Paris.

          I listened to music during most of the movie though. That showed em.

      • Re:44.99 != $ (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArcticCelt ( 660351 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:35AM (#9622726)
        I remember that after the deception of seeing "Star Wars Episode one" I was thinking well at least there is the two next matrix that will kick ass... I was so wrong. Like you I love the first one but the two other have nothing to do with the original.

        Now I have switched my trust to Star Wars again and I am crossing my fingers and hoping that the name won't be something like: "Star Wars III - Jar Jar Binks Chronicles."

        George, you are our only hope... (so basically where toast)

      • Re:44.99 != $ (Score:3, Interesting)

        by scrytch ( 9198 )
        spoiler warning ... ah hell, who cares, you've seen it or you won't.

        I have the first DVD as well, and only that thanks to the dreary and disgusting mess of the second two Matrix movies, in the same fashion that George Lucas succeeded in turning me off to Star Wars (I own zero Star Wars DVD's). The first Matrix was great, but never for the acting. It was a perfect fusion of sci-fi and kung fu, complete with the philosophical reflections on reality (think of the treatment of chi in kung fu here).

        The secon

    • Free your wallet, Neo (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:34AM (#9622028)
      I can't wait to watch "The Making of 'The Making of the Matrix'".

    • Re:44.99 != $ (Score:5, Funny)

      by narsiman ( 67024 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:57AM (#9622965)
      Doesnt matter. In hongkong it is $2 - Irrespective of the conversion rates.

    • 6 disks too many. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScottGant ( 642590 ) <scott_gant@sbcgl ... minus herbivore> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:58AM (#9622974) Homepage
      I mean, come on...one disk for each movie (don't give me extended versions unless you actually filmed extra footage to include later on special DVDs ala "Lord of the Rings"...seeing footage that was cut because it SHOULD have been cut is not my cup-of-tea. See the extended version of "Dune" and "Superman: The Movie" for stuff that should have stayed out...."Otis, feed the babies"...nuff said....

      Ok, we have 3 disks there with plenty of room for commentary tracks. Then we can have an extra disk for the Animatrix shorts AND all the "Making Of" docs you want. There...saved ya 6 other disks. Something tells me that they're not filling up to full capacity the DVD's.

      • Re:6 disks too many. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kelerain ( 577551 )
        (don't give me extended versions unless you actually filmed extra footage to include later on special DVDs ala "Lord of the Rings"...seeing footage that was cut because it SHOULD have been cut is not my cup-of-tea.)

        The new footage was filmed specially for the 'Enter the Matrix' video game, which takes place in parallel to the film, following the story of Niobe and Ghost. You see/help them do things such as playing catchup on the freeway chase, and going to the power plant to destroy it. The parallel ga
      • Sometimes footage is cut not because it sucks, but because the director is told "This movie cannot exceed 90 minutes"... thus forcing said director to cut otherwise good footage that *should* be in there.

        Also, as the other poster said, it inserts the video game stuff.

  • For those wondering this isnt Region 1.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arock99 ( 612650 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9621856)
    A box set hasnt been annouced for region 1 yet (US & Canada).

  • 10 DVDs? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bob McCown ( 8411 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9621858)
    <NEO>Whoa</NEO>

  • There's a trilogy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9621860)
    As far as I'm concerned, there is only The Matrix. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of any followup films.

    • Re:There's a trilogy? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That is how I feel about 'Highlander'. Truly, there can be only one... movie.
    • "As far as I'm concerned, there is only The Matrix. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of any followup films."

      Why even go that far? What was it about the first one that was underwear-tent-popping good?

      I'm serious about this. What I saw was a flash in the pan that hardly survived a second viewing. What'd everybody else take out of it?

      • Re:There's a trilogy? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by no reason to be here ( 218628 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:08AM (#9622424) Homepage
        For a mindless summer blockbuster, there was a good dose of philosophy and symbolism in The Matrix. Add to that the fact that, in 1999, those really were some freakin' cool special effects. I was, however, let down that the first movie devolved into a blow 'em up, shoot 'em up gun fest. There was a lot of potential there halfway through that was lost the instant Neo says they need "Guns. Lots of guns."

        • Re:There's a trilogy? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by General Wesc ( 59919 ) <slashdot@wescnet.cjb.net> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @02:55PM (#9624980) Homepage Journal

          I must have missed the part with the interesting philosophy. I saw Socrates repeated for the ten thousandth time. Socrates, Descartes, myself, and everyone else who has every though about what they know.

          I like philosophy. I'm doubling in philosophy. But when someone says a film has a lot of good philosophy in it, I generally expect to see some ideas that haven't been mainstream for 2,000 years and haven't been rehashed in half the science fiction previously written.

          The other two made decent action films. I actually prefered them. They weren't great, but at least they didn't waste all their time rehashing trite scifi storylined. Well, they didn't seem as trite.

          My brother (not an action fan, but certainly a scifi fan) summed up The Matrix fairly well, I though: they discover that this is all a big illusion and nothing in the simulation is real. So they get a bunch of not-real guns and shoot all the not-real stuff. WTF?

          (Probably is better on the big screen. Oh well. Too late now, I suppose.)

          • But when someone says a film has a lot of good philosophy in it, I generally expect to see some ideas that haven't been mainstream for 2,000 years and haven't been rehashed in half the science fiction previously written.

            Why would you expect that? Has there ever been a movie that met your philosophy quotas? Would even Waking Life make the cut? None of the ideas in that moving are something you wouldn't hear a philosophy 101 undergrad say. Pure ideas simply don't render well into visual medium.

            The Matri

      • Re:There's a trilogy? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:53AM (#9622924) Homepage
        For one thing, it will be remembered as the last movie that had actual, cool special effects besides simple 3d-rendered models. The fights in Matrix were 1/10th as spectacular as those in the sequels, but were so much more enjoyable and enthralling to watch because the actors were real humans and not models.

        Maybe its just me, but I can still tell very, very easily when they switch over from meatspace people to 3d models in most movies, and somehow my eyes gloss over at the 3d human substitutes. Spiderman 2 was the only movie where I had difficulty telling, and that was because his costume is so inhuman looking already. In Harry Potter, LoTR, Van Helsing, and Matrix 2,3, all the CG scenes somehow just don't grip me the way the real meatspace scenes do. Its different in older movies where the CG was only used for wholly inhuman things, or in all-CG movies where the CG version _is_ the character, but in new movies where CG is just used for impossible stunts - it just becomes ignorable.

    • New transfer (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rd_syringe ( 793064 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:16AM (#9622537) Journal
      Unfortunately, I doubt it'll be sold seperately, but the version of the Matrix in this box set is a brand-new transfer. Should be much cleaner. Also, the Wachowskis were never happy with the originaly DVD transfer, as it was too bright. The new transfer will be more accurate to the original theatrical release as well as more consistent with the color scheme of the sequels.

      Personally, the dark green and blue of the two sequels gave me headaches, but hey, hopefully the first one won't look bad, and it'll be a much cleaner transfer and probably include a new audio mix.

  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9621864)
    Does it have a good version?

  • Wow (Score:2, Funny)

    by bool morpheus() ( 689231 )
    Ten discs, at ~4.5gb a piece. I wonder how long it will take to rip a DivX of that. As a bad actor once said, "whoa".

  • 10 discs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by julesh ( 229690 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9621868)
    Isn't that, like, a little extreme? They could get nearly 40 hours worth of video on that. I wouldn't have thought that much footage would have been shot during the making of 3 films.

    • Re:10 discs? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They shoot for a few months, and you don't think they'll have 40 hours? They likely have hundreds of hours, with dozens of cuts for each scene. These are just the prime selection of that.

    • Re:10 discs? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:29AM (#9621981)
      Well, they tried different catch-phrases other than "Whoa!", so those will also be on the discs, including:
      • "Dude!"
      • "Oh man!"
      • "Jinkies!"
      • "What the friggity?!"
      • "Wowzers!"
      • "First post!"

      • Re:10 discs? (Score:4, Funny)

        by XO ( 250276 ) <blade.eric@NoSPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:57AM (#9622289) Homepage Journal
        You forgot when they were trying out Snoop Dogg for the part:

        Fo-Shizzle!

      • Re:10 discs? (Score:3, Funny)

        by danila ( 69889 )
        From here:
        http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=95 0 20&cid= 8149141

        But of course we must honor the best quotes from each of the three movies:

        The Matrix:
        Context: Morpheus jumps a massive gap between two skyscrapers
        Neo: Whoa.

        Reloaded:
        Context: Neo throws a smith out of the battle, where he lands, hard.
        Smith: More!
        More context: (More smiths charge in)

        Revolutions:
        Context: Neo runs out of the train station, off to the left, and we see him come back into the train station on

    • Re:10 discs? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Brain Stew ( 225524 ) <(zackwag) (at) (verizon.net)> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:30AM (#9621991) Homepage
      Through some investigation at DVDTalk.com and HMV, here's what will be on this UK set:

      The ten discs seem to be:

      1. The Matrix - With All-New Transfer & Audio Commentary
      2. The Matrix Revisited - Original Version With Behind-The-Scenes Footage
      3. Matrix Reloaded Extended Version - New Cut With 55 Minutes Of New Footage Inserted Back Into The Film
      4. Matrix Reloaded Revisited - All New Interviews, Scene Dissections And More!
      5. Matrix Revolutions - Original Cut With Audio Commentaries
      6. Matrix Revolutions Revisited - A Host Of All-New Extras
      7. The Animatrix
      8. The Roots Of The Matrix - 3 Hours Of Features
      9. The Burley Man Chronicles - The People Behind The Matrix Discuss Their Work
      10. The Zion Archive - A Tour Of Matrix Design Concepts, Storyboards & Drawings

      And here is HMV's list of special features for the new discs:

      THE MATRIX

      • All-New Transfer & Audio Commentary
      • All-New transfer supervised by The Wachowskis and director of photography (DP), Bill Pope
      • Audio commentary by Keanu Reeves, Carrie Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, DP Bill Pope and other cast and crew
      • The Matrix Revisited - Original version with behind-the-scenes footage
      • The Matrix Revisited (180 Minutes) - Same special features as previous release
      • Offers comprehensive behind-the-scenes look at the first film in the trilogy.

      MATRIX RELOADED

      • Extended Version - New Cut With 55 Minutes Of New Footage Inserted Back Into The Film
      • Matrix Reloaded Revisited - All New Interviews, Scene Dissections And More!
      • Matrix Reloaded Extended Version (190 Minutes) - New Special Features new cut incorporating 55 minutes of footage shot for the 'Enter The Matrix' Game
      • Audio Commentaries by Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Production Designer Owen Paterson, 2nd Unit Directors David Ellis And Kimble Rendall and other cast and crew
      • Matrix Reloaded Revisited - Special Features (180 Minutes)
      • Includes All New Footage Including Dozens Of Never-Before-Seen Cast And Crew Interviews, Scene Dissections, Explorations Of The Production Design And Special Effects, And More

      MATRIX REVOLUTIONS

      • Matrix Revolutions - Original cut with audio commentaries
      • Matrix Revolutions Revisited - A host of all-new extras
      • Matrix Revolutions - new special features:
      • Audio commentaries by Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Special Effects Supervisor, John Gaeta; editor, Zach Staenberg and other cast and crew
      • Matrix Revolutions Revisited - Special Features (180 Minutes)
      • Includes all new footage, including dozens of never-before-seen cast and crew interviews, scene dissections, explorations of the production design and special effects, and more

      THE ANIMATRIX

      • Same Special Features As Previous Release

      THE ROOTS OF THE MATRIX

      • The Roots Of The Matrix - 3 Hours Of Features:
      • The Roots of the Matrix - Special Features (180 Minutes)
      • The Matrix and the History of the Action Genre - Examines The Many Influences Of Action Cinema That Make Up The Matrix
      • Brainiacs' Revenge - Scholars, Philosophers, Theorists, And Charlatans Deconstruct The Intellectual Underpinnings Of The Trilogy
      • The Science Behind The Fiction - Is The Notion Of A Real Matrix Plausible? An Investigation Of The Technologies That Inspire The Metaphor Of The Matrix

      THE BURLEY MAN CHRONICLES

      • The Burley Man Chronicles - The People Behind The Matrix Discuss Their Work:
      • The Burley Man Chronicles - Special Features (75 Minutes)
      • The Burley Man C

      • Re:10 discs? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:37AM (#9622066)
        In other words:
        • Two versions of one cool movie
        • Eight disks of self-aggrandizing ego balm wherein the W. bros try and reassure themselves about how cool and talented they are.
      • Matrix Reloaded Extended Version - New Cut With 55 Minutes Of New Footage Inserted Back Into The Film

        34 minutes of which will probably be an extension to the original "Dance Party Zion".

        *long shudder*

  • If only... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9621870) Journal
    ...the successors to the Matrix were not some of the most disappointing films I've ever seen, I'd run out and buy tomorrow.

    • Re:If only... (Score:4, Funny)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:27AM (#9621960) Homepage Journal
      you obviously haven't seen precursors to one other film series..

    • Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by emorphien ( 770500 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:28AM (#9621964)
      Amen. The second was bad, the third was unthinkable. They totally destroyed what was and could have been a really cool series and a lot of fun.

      After a while it became really painful to watch those CGI'd smith and neo fights that would just drag on forever and had action similar to what a 10 yr old might daydream during english class. It went beyond the "matrix" physics and just became absurd. Everyone was so powerful there was no suspense.

      • Re:If only... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by teslatug ( 543527 )
        Anyone else reminded of the DBZ fight scenes while watching those fights?

      • Re:If only... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:20AM (#9622570)
        Gotta chime in an alternate opinion. I thought the third film, while not as good as the first, was quite fun.

        First, I will not apologize for any of the crappy Zion dialogue. The best I can say for that is that dialogue was in thankfully short supply down there. But the fight down there was breathtaking. It was expertly conceived and executed. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen if I wanted to.

        And the interplay between Neo and Smith was great. The fight was classic unstoppable force impenetrable barrier in the style of a lot of anime and American comic books. The resolution was both classic and unexpected; the only way to win was to give up.

        Speaking of giving up, I think a lot of the bad feelings over the third film were because people gave up after the underwhelming second film. Perhaps the third doesn't "make up" for the second, but how could it? Watch it again and you just may find you actually like it on it's own merits.

        TW

        • Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kahei ( 466208 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:41AM (#9622786) Homepage
          But the fight down there was breathtaking. It was expertly conceived and executed. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen if I wanted to.

          Yes, it was good the way the squids all poured in through this one hole, and the humans all stood stock still and shot at them... and more squids came... and the humans kept shooting... and more squids came and the humans shifted position veeeery slightly, and kept on shooting, just shooting and shooting and shooting until you wonder whether the budget simply didn't stretch to any other sound effect, and then they shoot some more...

          Gripping stuff!

        • Re:If only...Amen! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:57AM (#9622966)
          Speaking of giving up, I think a lot of the bad feelings over the third film were because people gave up after the underwhelming second film. Perhaps the third doesn't "make up" for the second, but how could it? Watch it again and you just may find you actually like it on it's own merits.

          Agreed. Here is a tip - don't stand in line for these things at the theater. I saw the first one and frickin loved it. Saw the second one, and left kind of scratching my head. I had to hope that the third one would tie it all up. But I waited, and didn't go see it in the theater. I read all the bad reviews. Then I rented it - and thought it was better than the 2nd one. It wasn't THAT bad. Not great, but better than a lot of the reviews I read.

          Everyone talks about the "movie theater experience", but I just don't get it. Other than bigger and louder, the theater experience just is not as good to me. No, I am not one of those people with the 5.1 surround and a 60" TV. I have basic surround and a 27" TV, and I still enjoy movies more at home than at the theater. Cheaper food, more comfortable, I can go pee without missing any of the movie, etc. I don't need to share the experience with a hundred other people.

      • Re:If only... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bfields ( 66644 )

        After a while it became really painful to watch those CGI'd smith and neo fights that would just drag on forever and had action similar to what a 10 yr old might daydream during english class. It went beyond the "matrix" physics and just became absurd.

        Of course, the funny thing is that the fights in the first movie were already absurd, at least from the perspective of someone not already exposed to lots of kung-fu movies.

        Come to think of it, the fight scenes in almost all movies are absurd; we just take

    • The second and third matrix films were a work of pure genius. It was just so subtle you guys didnt see it... you see the W. Bros. were simply elaborating on the 'black cat concept' in the first film....

      It worked on me anyway, at first I believed I had watched two totally shit movies, after much deliberation I decided it was actually the exact same shit twice!

  • Enter the Matrix footage... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:22AM (#9621873)
    ...contains IMO Seraph's coolest moment - "first I must apologise" to one of the Captains with a gun, then backwards somersaults and knocks the gun out of his hand. Then quite a good fight to "get to know him" like he does to Neo.

  • Disc Four: Matrix Reloaded Revisited? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Roofus ( 15591 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:22AM (#9621876) Homepage
    Nice! I'm going to wait for the Super Special Edition though, I hear it will contain a disc titled "Matrix Reloaded Revisited Revamped".

    That price seems awfully cheap for a ten disc set though.

  • Finally... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NeoFunk ( 654048 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:23AM (#9621890) Homepage
    A TEN disc Matrix box set. The geeks really HAVE inherited the earth.

  • great (Score:5, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:23AM (#9621891) Homepage Journal
    Here comes a bunch of "Matrix sucks" comments. Hurry up, I'm anxious to read them!!

  • Will this sell? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:24AM (#9621899) Homepage Journal
    This isn't a troll; I just have a warped, slashdot view of the world.

    As far as all the geeks I know here say, the last movie SUCKED (or WAS TEH SUCK).

    Are there enough remaining fan boys who loved the series the justify a purchase like this?

    I know that for Lord of The Rings a 40 disc box set (including a full disk of Viggo Mortensen clearing his throat in the morning) would be snapped up in a jiffy by everyone here (*well, everyone but the Tolkein die hards).

  • Like the acting.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Durzel ( 137902 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:24AM (#9621905) Homepage
    Does it come in a wooden box?

  • Enter the matrix (Score:4, Interesting)

    by alex_tibbles ( 754541 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:25AM (#9621912) Journal
    I've never played this so may get this for that (footage interleaved as Extended Reloaded). Dispite its faults, the Matrices are slick and impressive action films, the first being a finely balanced roller-coaster (with amusing product tie-ins etc.) and the other two being poorly balanced but still exciting to watch (IMHO).

  • Trinity (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .stnapyffuprm.> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:25AM (#9621914)
    I believe that this box set will also include the 30 minute long death footage of Trinity that was cut for 'consistency'

    "Neo"
    "Yes"
    "Lets act out MacBeth before I die.....one last time!"
    "Hark!"

  • Revisionist history (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:25AM (#9621918)
    In this version, Greedo "whoas" first. And some of the dialog has been 3d rendered.

  • Milking the franchise (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) * on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:26AM (#9621930)
    I'd bet dollars to donuts that next year, there'll be another special edition, a widescreen edition, a directors cut... how many times can you get the same people to buy the same movie with just a few tweaks? I don't know but George Lucas must have a pretty good idea by now, and the Wachowskis are his best students.

  • A few things we might want, such as: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:30AM (#9621990)
    - A version of Reloaded that doesn't suck
    - A version of Revolutions that doesn't suck horribly
    - An ending not designed to make one violently ill
    - A box set that comes with two free movie tickets to any other movie, as a means of apologizing for the money wasted on Reloaded
    - Rather then taking up all this space, a box set that only features stuff worth watching.

    Oh wait, we already have that last one. Its called the first movie!

  • 10 discs sounds a lot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:30AM (#9621994)
    But I believe an extension to your house will be required to store the LOTR special edition discs.

  • Torture Regiment (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ravensign ( 134410 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:34AM (#9622035)
    Ok.

    20 Hours of Matrix footage + 4 hours of sleep a day would work out to a pretty nice punishment for murderers.

    Of course, the Trinity death scene would be removed due to 8th amendment considerations.

  • Basic ROM Features? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <[ajs] [at] [ajs.com]> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:34AM (#9622037) Homepage Journal
    What does "Basic ROM Features" mean on disk 10?

  • Enter the Matrix footage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:39AM (#9622091)
    I've always wondered why no one ever made a "phantom edit" of Matrix Reloaded with that extra footage...

  • Does it bother anyone else... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:41AM (#9622115) Homepage
    ...that movie studios are filming scenes specifically to cash in on the DVD aftermarket? It used to be that I would go the movie theater to see a movie on "the big screen" to see the film "the way it was meant to be seen." Now, when I go to see a movie in the theater, I feel like I am being cheated because they simply aren't showing the "entire" movie. It's now become a given that DVD's will contain "extra" or "deleted" scenes. At sometimes over $9.00 for tickets, I feel cheated by this.

    A colleague of mine said "Well, you're paying the extra money for the extra DVD content." Hmmmm. Shouldn't movies now be marketed as "Movie Theater Edition" or something?
    • All movies go through a process called "editing" where the film is cut to fit the director's vision and the studio's time constraints. There have always been "extra" or "deleted scenes." With DVD, we get to see them. Before, we did not.

      • Re:Does it bother anyone else... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:03AM (#9622359) Homepage Journal
        Peter Jackson discussed this on one of the LoTR discs, pointing out that for home DVD viewers, a director can take more time to flesh out characters or plot. At home you can always hit pause when you need to and take more time to enjoy the film, whereas commercial theaters have a greater interest in churning the audiences in and out the door.

        I wonder if we'll ever see a long commercial film released again in the US that actually contains an intermission. You'd think that with the money made at concession stands, this wouldn't be a bad idea...

    • Re:Does it bother anyone else... (Score:5, Informative)

      by koreth ( 409849 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:02AM (#9622343)
      There is no conspiracy here. Directors have always been forced for one reason or another to cut out footage they originally intended to include in a film. That's why there's usually a person with the job of "editor" on the crew of a movie -- in addition to helping select which particular angle is the best one for a scene, that person's job is to trim out the fat and keep the pacing of the movie on track.

      The difference these days is that where the studios used to take all that extra film and throw it in the trash (or stuff it in poorly-maintaned warehouses where a lot of old footage has rotted away or -- I'm not joking -- been eaten by rats) now it's preserved and put on DVD for interested viewers.

      Yeah, there are a few movies like the LotR trilogy where the director shoots a scene knowing full well that it's intended for the DVD. And I suppose given its financial success, we may see additional "shoot some extra scenes for the video game" cases like Matrix Reloaded. But the vast majority of deleted scenes on DVDs are simply the result of the absolutely ordinary process of editing a movie into shape.

      When it comes on again, try watching "Project Greenlight" if you want an illuminating view of what a director goes through and how much of the intended film actually ends up on screen. I believe I heard they're doing a low-budget horror movie for the next project, which ought to be fun.

      • Directors have always been forced for one reason or another to cut out footage they originally intended to include in a film.

        It's not always the case that directors have to be "forced" to cut their films. Many are good judges of pacing and story who enjoy and embrace the trimming process, and can be quite ruthless on their own. For instance, Ridley Scott [imdb.com] considers his original 1979 theatrical cut of Alien [imdb.com] the best version, and was not forced into it by any stretch of the imagination. (See his intervi

    • Re:Does it bother anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stienman ( 51024 ) <.adavis. .at. .ubasics.com.> on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:13AM (#9622479) Homepage Journal
      You've got it all wrong.

      The movies theaters are for showing the "film as it was meant to be shown to the masses" not the "film as intended by the director".

      Movie theaters exist because home theaters are very expensive and it's more cost effective to see the movie in the theater than to invest in a good home setup.

      Just as the movie industry had to change with the introduction of videotapes, they will again have to change when home theaters are less costly and more common.

      But the upshot is that a movie theater is set up to have a fixed ticket price per movie. Some movies will never go longer than 1.5 hours, and others will require 3 hours or more. Theaters are not set up for graduated pricing, and they make significantly less money showing a longer film than showing a shorter one unless it also runs for several weeks longer and attracts a steady audience.

      Theaters will not show long films that are not guranteed to draw huge audiences. Producers know this and force directors to cut films to a reasonable length. Directors, knowing that they will "always have the DVD", do so reluctantly and then polish the film for the extended DVD release. Did you notice how LoTR 1 played in theaters for weeks longer than LoTR 3? There's a cost/benefit ratio here. If you want to see the movie as the director intended (given the budget they had) then you buy the extended edition. Consumers are happy, fans are happy, studios make millions, and the smurfs escape from gargomel once again.

      So don't feel cheated. You're paying $9 for a $9 experience. This is the edition the director expected you to spend $9 for. Remember that the directors and the theaters are at the mercy of the movie studios/producers. If you don't like it, then spend time writing letters and faxes to the studios - both when they do good and when they do bad. But don't blame the theater owners when they start raising prices across the board to accomodate the one or two movies a year that are 4 hours long.

      Remember that we American Consumers like our flat rates.

      -Adam

      • Re:Does it bother anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @12:29PM (#9623318) Homepage
        While I definitely agree with your explanation, I still feel like there's an underlying "falseness" to the whole process.

        Take, for example, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" which I saw the week it was released back in the late 70's. As many know, the "theater edition" was very different from the "special edition" now available on DVD. OK, I'll concede that my liking the theater edition MAY be due to seeing it first, but the tone and mood of the "theater edition" is very different from the "special edition"--I personally prefer the "theater edition".

        Additionally, the "theater edition" is/was the edition that the critics and viewers reviewed and talked about. It was the edition that made the press. It was the edition that won the awards. It was the edition that made the studio its money. Do we now have to have Oscars for after-market releases? (Maybe they do--I rarely watch awards shows anyway.)

        And the kicker is that the theater edition (and not just of "Close Encounters") of movies is often not available on DVD, only the "director's cut". These "special" or "director's" editions continue to be available, but the editions that launched it all disappears. While I certainly embrace the ability to see what the director "really wanted" and the extra content is typically worth the price of the DVD, I feel like it's a form of re-writing history.

  • useless matrix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by laurentc ( 65118 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:47AM (#9622178)
    go Read Neuromancer by Gibson

    It's much better value and probably will last you a lifetime copared to this inept excuse for a movie.

    • Re:useless matrix (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:25AM (#9622616) Journal
      Existenz, which was released simultaneously to The Matrix, is also a good alternative if you want to watch a movie with more depth. Cronenberg has really grasped a strong sense of the 'what is reality' themes from Philip K Dick, along with the technology/biological fusion themes of Gibson. It was more of a thinking movie than an action shoot-em-up. The Matrix was fun to watch (unlike the sequels), but Existenz is a movie that I thought about when leaving the theatre.

      PS Side note... While writing this post I just realised that Dick and Gibson are/were essentially emmigre Americans who live(d) in Vancouver, BC. I wonder if its the rain that alters their perceptions of reality in such creative ways?...

  • party footage? (Score:4, Funny)

    by whynotme ( 628513 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @10:49AM (#9622192)
    The Matrix Reloaded: New Cut With 55 Minutes Of New Footage Inserted Back Into The Film
    Does this mean that we'll finally be able to see the end of the "Cavern Dance" party??? I've been wondering how that turned out...

  • The open source disk set (Score:3, Funny)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:18AM (#9622555) Homepage
    The ten disks you really want:
    1. The rendered movie.
    2. Principal photography before post.
    3. The 3D models.
    4. Motion capture and animation curve data.
    5. Texture files.
    6. On-set audio.
    7. Re-recording audio.
    8. Mixer setting and timing files.
    9. Asset management configuration files and build scripts.
    10. Help files.

  • Self-replicating comments (Score:3, Funny)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:36AM (#9622736) Homepage

    Look... an endless stream of near-identical /. comments about how bad the sequels were!

    The only way to defeat them is to stand still and wave a rubber pole at them for something like twenty minutes.

    I only hope I can manage that before they morph into a more powerful strain of /. comments about how unbelievably dreadful Trinity's death scene was (the last 15 minutes were the worst).

  • To those mouthing off (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Floet ( 638468 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @11:48AM (#9622855)

    Granted, it could be said subjectively that the first Matrix movie was the best of the trilogy, but quite frankly, it makes me very annoyed that people would have the gall to badmouth the series the way they do. Is the Matrix Trilogy a cinematic classic that will be taught and lauded for decades to come? Short answer, no. But the way most of you geeks blab on and on about the piss-poor quality of the movies, you'd think that given the helm, and a word-processor that whatever "film," you produced would rise above the level of tripe.

    Before I am flamed, I undertsand that everyone does have their own opinion, and is entitled to that opinion, but because a movies didn't follow the path you thought they would, doesn't make it utter shit. They (the Wachoski *siblings*) were able to make something very philosophical, even if it wasn't Pantheon worthy, while at the same tiem incorporating enough so that the mundanes would actually enjoy it. Add to that decent characterization, and a sustained theme throughout all three movies.

    Personally, I found the second movie, sans dance sequence, to be the best of the bunch. Even though the computer graphics were a bit over the top, it did give much to think about. Did everyone forget the discussion with the Architect was in there? And that he essentially gave the whole philosophical underpinnings to the movies in the tirade? I could understand how many people would not understand the philosophy, but to you computer nerds, its rooted in math!!!

    To those who say the ending sucked at the end of the third, I have no comment. Yes, it was something of a flaccid penis instead of the money shot, but look at it in relation the rest of it. Neo is the 1. Not the ONE, or One, but the 1. The Matrix is an equation, or rather supposed to be a balanced equation. The Architect spells out that because of a flaw, a 1 results in the equation, and manifests itself in the Matrix. Neo. I know everyone may already know this, but keep with me. When Neo talks with the Oracle, she says that Smith is his opposite, due to the Matrix trying to balance itself. Hmmm, Neo, is one...Smith is...? -1. Period. Therefore, neither of them can really *win* they can only beat themselves into battered pulps. Neo realizes this, and stops fighting. Yea, even dumbass Neo realizes it. Now, to all you advanced theoretical math types that prowl these forums, 1+(-1)=?

    Ahh, the balancing of the Matrix.

    Weak? Maybe. Deus ex Machina? Certainly not. They cement reasons that everything happened, even though it may not have happened as you would have fantasized. So I reiterate what I said again, this time as a challenge. To those mouthing off, make something, or even just conceptualize something that you think is better than the Matrix concept. Add to that, how you would execute it. Until then, just shut your mouths and read a book.

    • Re:To those mouthing off (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UberOogie ( 464002 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @12:13PM (#9623164)
      Why is it that the endless Matrix apologists can't seem to fathom that there are those of us who do understand the "philosophy" behind the movies, got the oh-so-clever references that were crowbarred in at every opportunity, and still see the films for what they are: weak, derivative, poorly-plotted eye-candy with a dash of pretension?

  • So what're they gonna call the box set? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @12:54PM (#9623612) Journal
    "The Matrix Trilogy Re-Marketed?"

    Seems more like a ploy to recoup costs on the third movie. Anybody else notice when the third movie came out on DVD they weren't pushing the movie for movie sake, but trying to capitalize on the "own the trilogy" angle?

    Some people will collect anything.
    Personally, I like to collect bad habits.

  • Brits were shortchanged on the original DVD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @01:04PM (#9623722) Homepage Journal
    Here in the land of the vanishing currency symbol, the first film was cut in 2 places by our film censors (they demanded about 1 second of head-butting be cut from 2 fight scenes).

    For the DVD, we lost the 'music only, no dialogue' bonus soundtrack that was present on the other region 2 DVDs entirely, because they couldn''t be bothered syncing up that version of the audio or finding 1 one-second bits to splice into the fights.

  • Not getting it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Devil ( 16134 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @06:30PM (#9627266) Homepage

    I got my copies of The Matrix and The Animatrix used at Blockbuster; two for twenty dollars. Why would I want the other two films, both of which were abyssmal?

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close