MovieChat Forums > avortac4
avortac4 (3562)
Posts
The family house architecture/blueprint makes no sense
Crime makes no sense
Does Kant's philosophy make any sense?
Does not work as 'satire'
Agent Smith being slow and incompetent makes no sense
The EMP makes no sense
The bullet dodging makes no sense
What happens to the body when agent appears?
Can Morpheus jump (and other things that make no sense)
Machines stupidly making sure they lose makes no sense
View all posts >
Replies
This episode is on one hand very good and interesting, as it devicates STRONGLY from the usual The Simpsons-stuff. It brings the audience awfully, uncomfortably close to the depressing reality we all live in, while contrasting this dark, grimy reality with the cartoony, wacky and fun life of a cartoon character. We can't understand why we can't live as good a life as Homer, even though Homer seems to be just another dim-witted goofy guy.
The good points of this episode are, it's very 'different' from pretty much anything else, it's more 'realistic' than any episode usually dares to be, it shows us something about ourselves and the corporate world, but also pokes fun at the cartoony side of these cartoons - the fact that cartoons HAVE to be somewhat unrealistic to be entertaining is heavily underlined here. Obviously the acting job is phenomenal as well for everyone involved, the idea is unique and brave, the execution is brilliant and so on.
This is an amazing episode.
However, the bad points.. it ends a bit too dark, a bit too abruptly - they simply kill the 'realistic character' so the cartoony stuff can keep going. They basically mock and insult the audience for wanting even slightly more realistic 'nuclear powerplant' and the worst thing - this episode leaves you feeling bad.
The bad feeling you have at the end of this episode - no matter how fun and funny you think it was, no matter how much you enjoyed it - there's a deep truth about this episode that hurts on such a fundamental level, you can't help but feel at least a bit 'uneasy' after watching it. You may even come to some realizations about reality, but the awful feeling lingers, it stays.. the more you think of Frank, the worse you feel, because in some 'too real' ways, Frank is YOU.
This makes this episode basically a horror movie, an unexpected punch to your gut, something to shake you off your complacency, but also something to plunge you deep into despair about 'what's the point'.
This episode is a bit of mixed bag in my opinion. It kind of tugs your hearstrings while being unbelievably dark and depressing at the same time, and yet it makes you laugh due to how surreal Homer's success is really shown to be, and how that kind of Homer could never exist in real life without him being super SUPER lucky or basically a God of some kind.
Frank's confusion and frustration are very understandable, but because the audience knows more than Frank ever could, we also feel a bit helpless, wanting to help Frank understand and wanting to explain the true reason for all that to him, but knowing deep down, we never could, and he could never understand. How do you explain the concept of 'video game' to some RGP NPC?
Frank would probably be even more shocked, if he knew he's just a tool character in a long-running cartoon that has gone to very weird places and ridiculous achievements are just a byproducts of all that. Frank, just like the whole show, exists to entertain a TV audience, and that's the truth Frank could never understand or swallow.
So it's 'just as well' that he dies the way he does, without ever quite understanding the cause of his frustration, without ever quite reaching any kind of success he always wanted, without ever being able to even coming close to being able to compete with Homer, even though Frank is more intelligent, harder-working, more determined, has faced more hardships and struggles, and has basically all kinds of good qualities Homer doesn't.
It's like some people can never rise very high in some MMORPG PvP ranks no matter how hard they try, and it can stay a mystery to them why, because no one will tell them the core truth, and the super highly-ranked people seem to be just idiotic goofballs, just like anyone else, and yet they somehow succeed in things and on a level someone more intelligent can never even dream to.
Frank is the frustration in all of us when we see someone succeed in things we can't even become good at.
The idea, I think, was to introduce a 'realistic real-world character' into the 'cartoony world' of The Simpsons.
Frank Grimes is supposed to basically be 'the viewer', just as 'Scott' is in the Austin Powers-movies - no one in the audience really 'gets it', why the stupid villains have to always use ridiculous ways of trying to kill James Bond instead of just shootin him in the face (I mean, in-Universe, there is no legitimate reason, it's all done for 'filmmaking' reasons, for example, 'so the movie can happen')
However, the problem is, they made Frank Grimes a bit too unlikable, a bit too much of a jerk. I heard the voice actor tried to mimic the guy that plays the most hateable character in 'Fargo' (the movie), but I think he created his own 'Frank' voice that's perfect for the character.
Frank pretty much never smiles or has happy moments, so the episode is very dark. There are many dark moments in this show, but this is one of the most depressing ones - it basically shows there are people that no matter how much they try, how hard they work, they will never gain any kind of valuable success or high position in life, they will just keep failing and struggling on multiple levels, and it can only end in death.
What makes it funny is how clueless homer is to Frank's pain (that we, the audience, feel a bit too strongly), and keeps sort of 'uninentionally' making fun of Frank. It's also funny how his 'casual, easy-mode' life that yet ends up being an unrealistic success EXACTLY because it's a cartoon is juxtaposed to Frank's more realistic life struggles that the audience can relate to much more.
It's almost as if Homer is making fun of us, but at the same time, we want to root for Homer, because he's an innocent, family-loving guy just wanting to live his life in a fun and satisfying way. It's sort of self-irony that the show underlines just how RIDICULOUS it would be for a Homerlike man to actually achieve all that Homer has - poking fun at 'cartoon'...
Your topic implies there's an actual point you want to make with the 'if'-structure, but your post is completely different. What gives, man?
To answer your - I think what's supposed to be a QUESTION, even though you did not understand to use a question mark for some reason..
01) Why would you want some hideous a-hole that everyone hates back to the show? It's a GOOD thing she was arrested, she was disgusting in all possible meanings of the word, no one wants her back, good riddance, I hope she rots in that damn prison cell.
02) This show is a zombie, it's no longer alive, so it doesn't matter WHAT they do with it, as long as they don't respect the source material or write good stories that are told well. You can't even talk about 'fumes', this zombie is dried out and can barely move, and even that probably because of some kind of bionic implants that have been artificially installed in it. Why would you care what happens in this version of the show anymore?
03) There is a reason 'Sideshow' brothers were interesting - they had charisma, played by known actors who had just the right sense of humor and tact to play this surprisingly complex character, not to mention 'Frasier' was fresh and popular at the time. It all fit together like a glove, creating perfection in villainy and story structures without forgetting wacky hijinks or even med-jinks.
Compared to this bland, charismaless, stupidly-shaped, depressing, uninteresting, no-personality fat blob of a stupid, hopelessly criminal, hated hag, the Sideshow brothers were a stroke of a brilliant genius.
No one would enjoy this no-charisma blob as a villain, why would you want HER back of all people? Even Snake would make a more interesting villain with his weird valley girl / surfer lingo, if you want to go the 'unredeemable criminal'-route (and why would you).
The thing is, there are BETTER VILLAINS that have already been used, so why would there be a need to use this super bland and annoying one?
Let it go.
I don't understand your confusion.
First of all, this is a battle between 'good' (Clark) and 'evil' (Dark Superman). No matter what happens visually or physically, this is supposed to be an inner struggle that the good man wins against the evil one.
The symbolism of 'powerful evil' vs. 'normal/weak man' seems to have escaped you completely - talk about 'woosh'.
Also, Clark never 'changes' into anything - he doesn't need to suit to be powerful. In other words, Superman's power does NOT come from the suit, he ALWAYS has the power, regardless of what he is wearing or whom he pretends to be (after all, he is really Kal-El, not Superman, not Clark Kent, so maybe it would've been even more interesting to have Kal-El fight Superman, but never mind)..
Your confusing is really baffling - this is the ONLY scene that makes any sense in this movie, the only scene worth watching, the only scene that's good, interesting, intense and 'Supermanny'.
Superman is not just muscles and heat beams, Superman is also preservence of human spirit (otherplanetarians, that people insultingly call 'aliens', are still human beings, because spirit dictates all, not the physical form), Superman is also intelligence, bravery, courage and daring.
Superman is the inner strength of man, not the physical muscles, not the special effects, not the fancy suit to dazzle the eye and make people mesmerized, not the S-logo, not the 'handsome face'.
Superman, as this scene clearly shows, is the inner power to conquer and vanquish your more animalistic, more brutal, barbaric self so he can treat everyone equally as human beings.
This scene also symbolizes everyone's struggle against the lower urges. The physical body needs many things, but if you always give in to all of its urges, you lose your humanity and you live as a half-demon, slave to the carnal desires, which leads to misery, suffering and chaos around you (think of any alcoholic, drug-addict or feminist).
Superman shows the human can win.
People always talk about 'trolling', then they think it has something to do with the mythical creature that just HAPPENS to be called 'a Troll'. Of course, this is just a coincidence, and trolling is originally a form of fishing (not sure if a big net is used or not).
The metaphor is that a troller throws a big net into the water, then slowly drives up and down the river/lake/whatever until a lot of fish has been caught in it.
The fish are 'angry comments', the troller is 'provocateur', and the net is 'comment so absurd, it will trigger the biggest amount of people, thus, giving maximum amount of fish'.
Now, if this title is not the PERFECT example, an EPITOME of, or at least manifestation of, the clearest example of what TROLLING means in practice, I don't know what is. If there was a competition, if awards were given of the most idiotic ways of trolling, this line would surely be a winner:
"It's the best of the Reeve pictures...."
Calling a movie a 'picture' is not only archaic, but downright insulting, as there are millions of picture frames that a movie consists of. Calling a respected actor's filmography just 'Reeve pictures' could not be more insulting as well.
But the audacity to actually call _THIS_ the best of ANYTHING, other than garbage, just isn't logical enough for any rational human being to take seriously. This is DEFINITELY trolling, and I am not falling for it.
Obviously Christopher Reeve has made all kinds of movies, this comment does not even acknowledge that he's done anything other than Superman movies, and even 'Somewhere in Time' and 'Death Trap' are better than this stupid Pryor-movie (can't even be SAID to be a 'Reeve picture' even if you have no malice).
To not acknowledge Superman II as the best Superman movie, has also got to be a sin SO enormous, no one should ever take ANYTHING this Patrick.. BATE(!)man (see, how he's even using fishing terminology, BATING you to react and be triggered!) writes seriously whatsoever.
If not, why not?
I mean, can just ANYONE be 'the one', since it doesn't seem to require anything special?
If some dull-faced, insignifigant 'hacker nerd' can become super powerful, if the Morpheus crew already all know how to 'bend the rules' to jump super high and far without injury, why couldn't they just learn a little bit more and become 'the ones'?
What was special about that 'mystery man', what is so special about 'Neo', why can only those two become 'the ones'? If it's teachable, why did neither of them bother teaching that ability to everyone, how to become 'the one'?
If it's not teachable, then there must be some kind of 'special power' that somehow correlates with this COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL COMPUTER PROGRAM RAN BY SOULLESS MACHINES to make it possible to become 'The One', and no one is researching this at all?
I wish this movie had explained these things a bit more.. now we just have to accept that Oracle doesn't tell them the important stuff she ABSOLUTELY should, someone can just magically be 'The One' and the reasons don't seem to enter the discussion, no one else can level up to 100 because.. err..
I mean, I could understand if it was a 'Zen'-type thing, where you have to be enlightened (or experience Zatori) to even understand what Zen means. But this is a COMPUTER PROGRAM, so it should not require anything more special than TEACHABLE SKILLS.
No matter how much I think about this, I can't understand why Neo can do that but others can't, when it has nothing to do with anything spiritual or enlightenment-type stuff, but it's just 'how to defeat a computer program'. Does Neo somehow SYNCHRONIZE himself with how the machines think, and that makes him able to see the 'code'?
Does Neo always see The Matrix 'in code' now, or is it like 'super vision' of some kind? (Not to be confused with 'supervision')
I have so many questions about the movie's flimsy explanations, this one mystery is not particularly important compared to all the rest..
Nope, not 'the second movie'. There is no 'second movie'.
First, this board exists for discussing 'The Matrix'. Please do so.
Second, the so-called 'sequels' are universally considered to be the worst kind of trash sequels that ever existed, that retcon, cheat, lie and make so little sense when compared to this movie, no rational adult would EVER take those movies seriously, but more importantly, consider them as canon in any way, shape or form.
Just because a movie has a similar name, same actors and similarly-named characters, and is fabricated by the same people, doesn't mean it explains ANYTHING about some other movie.
As far as the 'man born inside' - it's just another 'convenient mystery' that makes no sense. They could have delved deeper into that, they could have SHOWN it instead or at least with telling about him, they could have explained how the mechanics of 'someone being born inside' work (do people that are 'grown' (not born, mind you, so he must've been a special case) get to be 'born' at the same, exact time in 'The Matrix' as they change from 'fetus' to 'baby' in the physical world? And HOW is this orchestrated? You'd think it would be almost impossible to synchronize and coordinate all the people having sex with the 'growing of bodies', and needlessly convoluted as well, considering they are just BATTERIES!)..
This movie doesn't really explain anything that the viewer might want to know about, so this 'mystery man that was born inside' is just ONE of the about 9 zillion points I have already posted about that make no sense and are not explained at all.
I would have preferred to have actually SEEN this explanation instead of just looking at a boring dark room, two of the main actors just not doing anything but talking on a flat angle. I would have wanted to see SOME kind of visual about it..
What _I_ would rather ask about this whole thing is.. WHY was that man 'born inside'? Why did he have that power? If he could have it, can anyone?
It also doesn't 'predate' anything - online games have existed as long a LAN networks have, which is a pretty darn long time.
FPS games have also existed WAY longer than you give them credit for. WoW is also NOT an FPS, it's a MMORPG that uses a third-person perspective, so nothing you say in your stupidly short post makes any sense.
Did you realize the game 'Doom', which is one of the first 'First-Person Shooters' (did you even know the acronym you used means this?) you could play in a LAN network, modem-to-modem, and so on, was created in 1993 and was wildly popular exactly in 'online FPS shooting'?
So Doom actually 'predates' (to use your ridiculous term) this movie by about six years - people WERE playing computer and video games long before this movie came along, and you can BET your buttockses there were a big bunch of addicts even in mid-eighties, let alone early nineties, LET ALONE 1999.
Did you EVER heard of things like 'Unreal', 'Unreal Tournament', 'Quake', 'Quake II', 'Quake III'? WILDLY popular 'online FPS' games, that all 'predate' (I am so tired of this term) this movie.
Could you please crawl back under the rock you obviously came from for some reason to post absolute nonsense..? Thank you.
WoW did not create a 'level of addiction'. Computers and games have been 'addictive' since seventies, so please think again.
There goes THAT theory is right, when it comes to YOUR nonsensical comment, but you could at least have added SOME kind of punctuation...
View all replies >