Filming of Matrix 4 Brings 'Excitement, Some Damage' to San Francisco (nbcbayarea.com) 100
"It's only been a few months since we learned that The Matrix 4 was actually a real movie that was going to actually happen, and was actually going to star Keanu Reeves, and now the movie is actually filming in San Francisco..." writes Cinema Blend. "However, making things real is apparently causing real damage in the city by the bay."
NBC Bay Area reports: Filming of "The Matrix 4" brought helicopters, explosions and cars flipping in the air to San Francisco over the weekend, but it also resulted in some damage. The heat from the explosions was so intense it melted the covers of a couple building lamps and melted the plastic cover of an advertising street sign. Workers who replaced the plastic said it cost about $2,000...
Filming of "The Matrix 4" in San Francisco wraps up on Sunday.
BGR reports that a few locals shared their own videos of the filming online, including one Twitch social media analyst who found prop cars at the old Transbay terminal that "smelled freshly burnt."
One YouTube user also shared footage of what they describe as "Keanu Reeves or Stunt Double Jumping off building in San Francisco."
NBC Bay Area reports: Filming of "The Matrix 4" brought helicopters, explosions and cars flipping in the air to San Francisco over the weekend, but it also resulted in some damage. The heat from the explosions was so intense it melted the covers of a couple building lamps and melted the plastic cover of an advertising street sign. Workers who replaced the plastic said it cost about $2,000...
Filming of "The Matrix 4" in San Francisco wraps up on Sunday.
BGR reports that a few locals shared their own videos of the filming online, including one Twitch social media analyst who found prop cars at the old Transbay terminal that "smelled freshly burnt."
One YouTube user also shared footage of what they describe as "Keanu Reeves or Stunt Double Jumping off building in San Francisco."
It wouldn't have been a tarp (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's peanuts either way. Budget for the movie is considerably more than the $60M or so for the first Matrix movie. They could pay for an accident like that every day of filming and it'd still be well within the "petty cash" part of the budget....
Re: (Score:1)
I smell a union.
Sorry, that's the stench of insurance you're whiffing.
Re: (Score:3)
$1000, $2000, or even $10,000 is still what amounts to a rounding error on a hollywood movie budget.
Re: (Score:1)
It's San Francisco, so $2000 is the amount you throw to a Tramp so they can afford to go buy themselves a coffee nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but we're gonna get the producer's cousin Moshe to do it anyway.
Anyone else think the original movies were 'meh' (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Movies? There was only one Matrix movie. Not sure what Matrix 4 refers to, since there was no Matrix 2 or 3.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Both the Wachowski brothers removed their dicks. That in itself is sufficient for endless Hollywood praise and 4 Oscars.
Uh oh, I'm about to get downmodded. Good thing the creator of this actual Holographic Universe has my back.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, they did a passable story about it. Rather vastly different than actually doing it [scientificamerican.com].
Re: Anyone else think the original movies were 'me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can actually feel the atheists smashing up their own brains trying to figure out how to be in denial about this.
in relation to a holographic universe theory that doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the existence of god. Yeah, you're wrong when you say that atheists would smash up their brains about that.
I can't tell you why you're wrong, because I don't know what you think atheists are, or why you think a scientific theory about how the physicality of the universe is implemented would blow their minds.
But I can tell you that you are wrong if you think that holographic universe theory (even if corr
Re: (Score:1)
in relation to a holographic universe theory that doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the existence of god.
Sure, say a holographic universe would happen randomly. Lie more absurdly, or more obviously. Either one.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly as I said, wrap a towel around your heads, downvoting mods. Your heads will explode trying to maintain this level of denial.
Of course, it doesn't matter what worldview we're talking about, your level of intellectual dishonesty should burn in hell, or the equivalent thereof.
And you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, say a holographic universe would happen randomly.
Why wouldn't it? I see no reason why 2D universes are less likely to appear spontaneously than 3D universes. Or 11D universes.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly also have no idea what a hologram actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't committed blasphemy yet today. It's always better with an audience.
The cake is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
And in case you're going to accuse me of being obtuse, here's a reference for your edification;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In scientific terms, it requires no creator but rather describes a theory about the physical nature of the NATURAL universe.
Re: (Score:1)
Enjoy.
Maybe you'll find someone else
To help you.
Maybe Black Mesa...
THAT WAS A JOKE, HA HA, FAT CHANCE.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong.
But make an actual argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Neither has any real possibility of happening randomly, on 1 out of 1 known "attempts" for which there is evidence, but the notion is so thoroughly design-obvious, I don't know what to say to flatly stating otherwise. With zero evidence of its plausibility. Ah well, evolution will fix you for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was nonsense.
1 out of 1 attempts, all physical constants randomly and magically exactly what is necessary for the production of intelligent life.
Let's not even bother to go down the whole irrational Anthropic Principle causality-reversing rabbit hole. Your position is absurd, and you know it, as you know it will be fixed by naturalistic evolution inevitably eliminating you in short order.
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cake is a lie.
Absolutely. Ice cream is Truth.
Re: (Score:2)
You have neither evidence for more than one Big Bang, nor evidence that any other permutation of constants could result in intelligent life.
That would be pure evidence-free speculation. Constrain your analysis to what you have evidence for.
Before you make the standard erroneous claim that my position has no evidence, here it is.
But since Stephen Hawking was an atheist, at last... er, final... statement, perhaps you'll consider his statement to qualify:
Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we
Re: (Score:2)
Correcting evidence link. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what can I say? Learn the basics of scientific argument. While your statement is theoretically true, it still remains you are offering no evidence for your position.
And yes, I'm a random guy on the internet to you. What gives my position consequence, is God. That will remain true whether you deny it or not. By contrast, your stance has no -even theoretical- consequence or importance. Evolution will eliminate you, the end.
Re: (Score:2)
What gives my position consequence, is God. That will remain true whether you deny it or not.
Aaaaand here come the evidence-free claims again.
Evolution will eliminate you, the end.
You appear to have a very distorted idea what evolution is about. Apparently you're projecting anthropomorphic properties even onto it.
Re: (Score:2)
I just gave you linked evidence of my claim, and it is evidence. Feel free to simply blatantly lie about it, it changes nothing.
No, I have no distorted idea of evolution. Evolution -will- physically kill you. There is -no- doubt of that. If that is the only scope of reality you have to reference, well, "sucks to be you", I suppose. That it isn't the attribute you wish to focus on, or the attribute of evolution that got you to your parrot-level "mental functioning" pushed willingly onto you by other soo
Re: (Score:2)
Why is a 2D universe appearing by chance less likely than a god appearing by chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Because God is fundamentally metaphysically different than matter. You need a First Cause, and matter can't be it.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just gave you linked evidence of my claim, and it is evidence.
You've linked some kind of Gish gallop of pretty much anything other than what was the topic, so I'm not sure I'd call it "evidence of your claim". For example, how in the hell is historicity of some accounts from the antiquity or some questionable philosophical argument relevant to whether this is the only universe in existence or not? Neither of those things is of *any relevance* to that issue. Hell, it's not even of any relevance to the much simpler question of what happened in other parts of *this* univ
Re: (Score:2)
My companion cube is named Geezus.
.o0 Another filthy heathen (Score:2)
Absolutely. Ice cream is Truth.
Please, I believe you misunderstand me. There can only be the Beer Volcano.
Ramen.
Re: Anyone else think the original movies were 'm (Score:2)
I'm sure he'll help you over, oh, say, the next 150 years. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah my brother, I perceive how you have been led astray. Once you've been shown the way of the Sake Tsunami you will truly believe.
Re: (Score:2)
But I can tell you that you are wrong if you think that holographic universe theory (even if correct) proves the existence of god...
If one considers god to be the entity that created the universe and everything in it, and one confuses (or treats as analogous) the holographic universe with the simulation universe then it's very easy to see that the latter presupposes (in essence proves the existence of) the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "phobic" in the least. Make up more nonsense terminology, that is transparently false as you project it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Worst part is I'll get modded down just for stating this apparently unpopular opinion."
Yeah, voting sucks sometimes. That's one of the reasons democracy gets a bad rap.
Re: (Score:3)
The first movie was also released during what-you-could-call "peak cyberpunk". That's part of the reason why it got hype. And after Johnny Mnemonic, Keanu Reeves may also have been the cyberpunkiest actor of them all.
Yes, the movie took many elements from Kung Fu and Anime, but those were new to most of the Western audience at the time.
The two sequels were not as well liked as the first, and are often considered to be redundant.
Personally, I feel like the new movie is even more redundant: Cyberpunk is not a
Re:Anyone else think the original movies were 'meh (Score:4, Interesting)
Still waiting for Neuromancer. -That-, I want to see.
Re: (Score:2)
God no, we've had 'Johnny Mnemonic' already as an adaptation of a William Gibson work with Keanu Reeves in it, and it was awful.
For me, part of the romance of Neuromancer is it being in text only, so I can make up my own pictures for how the Future looks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my beef with it though. Once they're in a simulation and therefore no laws of physics apply, why is anything interesting or surprising or anything else? "Whoah, there are two agent Smiths! Now 6! Now 50, 100!!!"
Re: (Score:1)
I don't mean they're bad, but I never understood the hype. Aside from the silliness of using humans as an energy supply I grew up on Kung Fu movies and had already seen that kinda wire-fu stuff before. I'm not a big gun action kinda guy though so that might explain my reaction. I'm more a "giant robots and space battles" guy.
I'd say the quality of the writing was good was better than average. I'm a fan, so I'm biased, but as real hardcore sci-fi, it was such relief to see after years and years of soft, fluffy pseudo-sci-fi that was, and is, really much more fantasy, than science, fiction. It didn't hurt that the special effects combined and perfected the transition between intensely fast fight scenes and the slowed down detail often missed in the heat of the moment. Acting was good, so was casting. They created an effective alt
Re: (Score:2)
> Look at all the shallow people who still equate spirituality with religion
Indeed.
Religion -- one man telling another what he should do to understand The Source better,
Spirituality -- one man telling another what he could do to understand The Source better.
What makes Religion a (exclusive) cult is the dogma "This way is the ONLY way." (And you are damned if you pursue any other way.)
What makes Spirituality a (inclusive) culture is the perspective "This way is A way but not the only way." (I don't kno
Re: (Score:2)
Your use of the word knowledge makes me dizzy and don't understand what you think atheist stands for. Knowledge isn't the same as belief so if you can't prove something you can't know it for sure and the sloppy everyday use doesn't IMO fit with the rest of your post. Atheism is someone that don't believe in god(s) generally used for those that don't believe in any god, demi-god, supernatural spirit etc. but can be used to describe e.g. the relationship of a christian to vishnu. An atheist can have spiritual
Re: (Score:2)
As for hard line religious types, there's nothing you can do unless you're in their particular circle to convince them you're not going to their imaginary hell. It doesn't take atheism.
Re: (Score:3)
> Your use of the word knowledge makes me dizzy
There are TWO types of knowledge:
* Intellectual
* Experiential
Atheists lack Experiential knowledge about The Source because they have ZERO belief about The Source.
Atheists are literally a spiritual blind man arguing color doesn't exist. From their perspective they are not wrong per se -- from their limited perspective -- they just haven't experienced spiritual sight to know HOW to separate immature man-made religious belief from mature spiritual knowledge.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone but the first was indeed bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The first movie was amazing.
It was. The film takes itself too seriously to hold up as well as it might have. When your buddy explains some crazy philosophy to you while you are both in high school, it's pretty novel. When he does it in middle age, still, it's a drag.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. Sequels, meh. I am not expecting much from this fourth one.
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly took it as the humans on the outside not really understanding WHY the machines were keeping humans alive in those massive towers and had just made a guess at the motives of the machines. The Animatrix actually implies their motives pretty well; that they are actually maintaining humans sort of like a pet because they see humans as being hugely destructive to everything around them including themselves... thus the Matrix was created as a way to keep them alive but deliberately subdued. The humans
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the original writing wasn't lolperpetualmotion, but that the cattle were used as neural processing. CPU, not coppertops. But then you couldn't flash a certain product during a big reveal, of course.
As the story goes, it was because they doubted audiences would follow it as easily, but it's internet hearsay and I didn't actually see an empirical source on it so the exacts are uncertain.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea of a secret cold war taking place in what we think of as reality was quite compelling, and it was well done and stylish. The budget wasn't huge so they had to limit the scope which actually made it a lot better.
The sequels just ditched that and now Neo goes around destroying entire cities and Agent Smith kills most of the human race, culminating in a Dragon Ball Z / Hokuto no Ken fanfic crossover. There were some interesting philosophical ideas but they were not presented well.
Re: (Score:2)
and had already seen that kinda wire-fu stuff before
Given the number of technological innovations that went into the first matrix film I think we can all conclusively cough an *ahem* bullshit *ahem* in your general direction. Equating what was going on in the first Matrix film to general kung fu wire stuff is simply asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
As the first movie goes, it was rather ground breaking technically the special effects were very well done and fresh. Of course, after 20 years of boring CGI yawnfests, it may seem a bit "meh" by today's standards, but you could also say the same about other movies like Star Wars.
I do agree that the sequels just weren't that good. Once into the 2000's you really couldn't carry a movie with just special effects anymore, and it's clear they didn't know where to take the story after the first movie - mostly
Another? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet! They are finally making a second Matrix movie? Odd to call it "Matrix 4", but whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's like Star Wars, starting on episode IV and they'll fill in the gap with prequels later...
I'm not one to prognosticate, but I'm not sure that bodes well for the quality of episodes 2 and 3...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your explanation fails to account for the non-existence of Matrix 2.
Re: (Score:3)
They went from 1 to 4 ? (Score:1)
They went from 1 to 4 ? What happend to Maxtrix 2 and 3 ?
I missed 2 & 3? (Score:2)
/Oblg. To bad they never made any sequels /s (Score:2, Funny)
https://xkcd.com/566/ [xkcd.com]
Market Street, S.F. (Score:2)
When they banned cars, I'll bet you thought it was going to be all sunshine and roses.
Not the Keanu sequel I am waiting for (Score:2)
Matrix 5 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath, documentaries don't sell well currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some weird form of Tourettes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, the Matrix 4? (Score:1)
1 --> 4???
Oh right.. this must be that sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. Causes the second movie to be numbered four instead of two.
Chicago. (Score:1)
All those explosions, fire and smoke? (Score:2)
Lead-Lined Refrigerator (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone say Reboot? (Score:2)
This is definitely going to be one of those soft-reboots they do now. They even have an in-universe excuse to do it. Think like a booze-addled Hollywood hack writer: After Neo blew up in Matrix 3, the machines weren't defeated and had to recoup. They re-instantiated a copy of Neo because they realized the Matrix was too unstable without a true Hero to look up to. Little did the machines know but a tiny fragment of Agent Smith yet lived in some dark corner of the Matrix, where he is gathering his streng