Matrix 2 & 3 riffed!!!!! (2004)

[Minnesota]

Hey I just remembered that Peter once made a comment about the matrix2 sex scene where he couldn't tell who's nipples he was seeing. Hehe good ol Peter, but I'm pretty sure there are no other parodies.

On the commentaries, its kinda funny how he always does the voices, my favorite is the professor's voice.

[BBQ Platypus]

Hey I just remembered that Peter once made a comment about the matrix2 sex scene where he couldn't tell who's nipples he was seeing. Hehe good ol Peter, but I'm pretty sure there are no other parodies.

On the commentaries, its kinda funny how he always does the voices, my favorite is the professor's voice.

I read Cracked magazine's list of the 10 worst sex scenes, and it also had trouble distinguishing between Keanu and "Girl Keanu."

[Konman72]

I could be wrong but I'm assuming that I'm the only one on Rifftrax.com that owns the 10 disc "Ultimate Matrix" DVDs? Well if that answer is yes then allow me to continue talking to myself, just kidding the rest of you can listen too. Mike isn't the first (or even the second) person to record a dvd riff of a Matrix film. I am glad to say however that he is the funniest to do so (as well as the first person to riff Matrix 1).

The two tracks(matrix 2, 3)that "riff" the matrix, basically tear apart the films from a movie critic perspective (ie; Ebert & Ropert) while the first commentary track (matrix 1) praises the film (and rightfully so).

So now that I've got everyones interest...
The Wachowski Brother's (any spelling errors are mine however:))

Excerpt from paragraph 5, page 2 of introduction (hey i spared you guys a whole page )          (continued below)

Actually, you aren't. I not only own the 10 disc box set, I own three. One of the standard green, one of the plastic LE with Neo bust that I opened and one unopened (I only got the last one because it was $40). I am a bit of a fan....oh....wait, no, I am a mega fan. The trilogy ranks as my favorite movie(s) of all time, which made the rifftrax so much funnier. I can kick off my shoes and have a good laugh at something that I love just as easily as I can with something that I hate. The movies are very serious, whichs makes them better films, but that seriousness can also be made fun of.

Although I haven't worked up the nerve to listen to the critic commentary, I just know that I will sit there yelling at the screen, "it is supposed to be that way! Don't you understand symbolism?!" or something like that. Thankfully the rifftrack was more laughing with than laughing at, although a few of the comments irked me a bit (such as the ones where they acted like it was hard to understand when it really.....really wasn't).

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention that I still have all of the original DVD releases, including Revisited and the Animatrix.

[Minnesota]

^^ cool, believe it or not it is okay to like the Matrix universe!  most people, however (myself included) thought that the sequels didnt live up to their potential
- the non action/love story/zion stuff was just boring
- plus, even in the first matrix the old black lady seemed out of place

The original matrix will always be one of my favorite films. Also, the Animatrix was the bomb.

[Konman72]

^^ cool, believe it or not it is okay to like the Matrix universe!  most people, however (myself included) thought that the sequels didnt live up to their potential
- the non action/love story/zion stuff was just boring
- plus, even in the first matrix the old black lady seemed out of place

The original matrix will always be one of my favorite films. Also, the Animatrix was the bomb.

Oh, trust me, I know. I still disagree of course

Although, how anyone could view the Oracle as out of place is beyond me, her character was basically the center of the entire series.

[Minnesota]

Her dialoge was too much 'if a tree falls does it make a sound?' kinda thing. That works for some people but I'm too literale and just say 'yes'. And I've never really liked metaphisical philosophy stuff either, I tend to just tune out when people ge into deep discussions about the meaning of life... to me its gibberish.

The thing that saved that sceen was the cool bald kid with the spoon. 

[Konman72]

Her dialoge was too much 'if a tree falls does it make a sound?' kinda thing. That works for some people but I'm too literale and just say 'yes'. And I've never really liked metaphisical philosophy stuff either, I tend to just tune out when people ge into deep discussions about the meaning of life... to me its gibberish.

The thing that saved that sceen was the cool bald kid with the spoon. 

Ahhh....I'm the exact opposite . And, no, it does not make a sound...

Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

[BathTub]

Meh, that would be hearing (yes i know you took it from a dictionary). It's really just some stupid semantics, to argue that no sound is created is just silly, all you are saying is that you give the sound another name, which is what?

[mrbasehart]

I think the best answer to "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" is "then who cares?".   

[Konman72]

Meh, that would be hearing (yes i know you took it from a dictionary). It's really just some stupid semantics, to argue that no sound is created is just silly, all you are saying is that you give the sound another name, which is what?

What is created is not sound, it is vibrations in the air. Sound is what we hear through those vibrations in the air, but those vibrations in and of themselves are not actually sound, they are just vibrations. This is the part where, if any one here cared about philosophy, I would go off on how this implies that we, as concious, sentient beings create the world around us, shaping it to our blah, blah, blah

[Sharktopus]

Even if no one is around, I'll bet the squirrels and birds heard it. So there.

[Konman72]

Even if no one is around, I'll bet the squirrels and birds heard it. So there.

Serious answer: I think they were implied in the "no one" comment.

Casual answer: 

[davo]

Meh, that would be hearing (yes i know you took it from a dictionary). It's really just some stupid semantics, to argue that no sound is created is just silly, all you are saying is that you give the sound another name, which is what?

What is created is not sound, it is vibrations in the air. Sound is what we hear through those vibrations in the air, but those vibrations in and of themselves are not actually sound, they are just vibrations. This is the part where, if any one here cared about philosophy, I would go off on how this implies that we, as concious, sentient beings create the world around us, shaping it to our blah, blah, blah

OK, i'll bite 

no we don't.  the vibrations from the tree are exactly the same. it's irrelevant whether our ear picks up the vibrations.  it's irrelevant if a hearing impaired person thinks the tree falling sounds like a muffled 5 footed hamster running across the yukon.  the essence of the "tree falling sound" is the same.

IOW, what makes a red ball red?  it's not us seeing the red ball, it is the property of 'redness' that the ball possesses. 


ANYway....now i'll have to get the 10 disc behemouth edition for those commentaries

[Winterkid]

'if a tree falls does it make a sound?'

No.  Only the guy it lands on makes a sound.  More of a gulping scream, really.

[Konman72]

Meh, that would be hearing (yes i know you took it from a dictionary). It's really just some stupid semantics, to argue that no sound is created is just silly, all you are saying is that you give the sound another name, which is what?

What is created is not sound, it is vibrations in the air. Sound is what we hear through those vibrations in the air, but those vibrations in and of themselves are not actually sound, they are just vibrations. This is the part where, if any one here cared about philosophy, I would go off on how this implies that we, as concious, sentient beings create the world around us, shaping it to our blah, blah, blah

OK, i'll bite 

no we don't.  the vibrations from the tree are exactly the same. it's irrelevant whether our ear picks up the vibrations.  it's irrelevant if a hearing impaired person thinks the tree falling sounds like a muffled 5 footed hamster running across the yukon.  the essence of the "tree falling sound" is the same.

You are correct in saying that the vibrations created are the exact same but those do not consitute "sound" as we define it. Sound is what is created when those vibrations are interpreted by a listener. What we have here is a semantic debate, i.e. a debate that is only caused by a lack of understanding of definitions (so, basically, neither one of us is wrong we are just disagreeing about definitions, I have actually seen other definitions that define sound as the vibrations themselves, but the one I am using is the top definition, thus the most widely accepted one). Sound is defined as "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium". Notice that sound is not vibrations in the air, rather it is a sensation that is caused by vibrations.

IOW, what makes a red ball red?  it's not us seeing the red ball, it is the property of 'redness' that the ball possesses.

The only reason that ball looks red to us is because of the way light is reflected off of its otherwise colorless surface. We see it as red because our eyes only pick up variations of red, green and blue. Other creatures, and indeed other humans, see the "red ball" as some other color entirely. This is because their eyes either don't sense things that ours do or, and this is the part that destroys your argument, they see more than us. So if there is more to be seen and this makes the ball not look red then it cannot possibly be a "red ball". Ask yourself this question (if you still disagree that is), what is the ball made of? Atoms right? Well are these atoms all red? Of course not. The ball is made up of an uncountable number of them. So if all of these atoms, which make up the ball, are not red then how can we objectively define it as red? Answer: we can't. Also remember the way color even works. Things don't just have color, they reflect light and that, to us, is perceived as color, so if there was no light at all then the object would not actually be "red" it would be black, which is the absence of color.

(note: as all philosphy students are told this stuff is not meant to affect daily life, I do not go around saying, "that ball which appears to be red" or anything like that, but in any type of objective, philosophical debate this is how things are handled)

(second note: your argument, by the way, that the ball contains the property of "red" is very Platonic in nature. Have you studied philosophy before or was this just an accident?)