MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Also, is 'filling some boring pit' really that relatable? Why would anyone think a story about 'a pit' would be interesting AT ALL, let alone be the premise of a whole show?
An office is a naturally interesting, even exciting place, because 'we've all been there', it's relatable.
How many of us have spent what seems like years, trying to fill a pit? What?
It's just a strange decision, just like giving the lead role to a mug like THAT.. not 100% unpleasant, but on the edge of almost 'uncanny valley' due to not being pleasant enough - and I am trying to be as objective as I can here. She reminds me of the female idiot in the old show 'Extras' - and I get the irony or whatever, because of the connection to 'The Office', I assure it's unintentional.
I mean, the 'female object of male lust' in the original UK office is also a slightly-repulsive blonde hag, made even more so by her being fat, but at least she was young and had a more pleasant face, so it wasn't too bad - plus, she was not the lead role.
Can you imagine UK office with the receptionist hag as the main role? Wouldn't that be strange?
What is this show supposed to give the viewer? There's no philosophy, relatability, beauty, charisma, wacky characters, interesting stories (I can't get over that someone GREENLIT this 'pit' idea), interesting office building, beautiful landscapes or any kind of promise. WHY did this get a second, let alone third season?
Do people just not get why 'The Office' was so good and celebrated? Did the same people that ran that show to the ground start this show?
The Office died, or at least went into a coma where it never recoverd the SECOND Michael Scott was permanently off screen.
This show started with worse coma than 'The Office' ever was in... and hasn't awakened yet.
I wonder how many seasons I have to wade through for this show to actually give me ANYTHING worthwhile that can even be compared to 'The Office'... I wonder.
Of course 'The Office' had its share of ugly characters - I don't think anyone can look at Phyllis and think 'ooh, what a gorgeous beauty', even though even that fat hag is pretty much the only 'The Office' character this blonde post-wall hag is better looking than. (I hope this sentence makes grammatical sense..)
I think her 'look', that IS at least 'slightly ugly', is wrong for a lead role, wrong for a comedy, wrong for a TV show, because it's not just 'plain' or 'neutral', but sometimes (OK, many times) ACTIVELY repulsive, and this isn't some hater- or troller(it's not a 'troll', it's 'troller', and you are revealing how you are just a hater of the truth that you can't handle by immediately employing such terminology instead of some kind of actual arguments)-speak, but just an undeniable fact.
She probably wasn't all that pretty even when her body was young, but to put a post-wall hag as some kind of lead in a show and expect no reaction to her repulsiveness is expecting a bit too much of the audience, or being a bit too clueless about what works in a TV show and what doesn't.
This feels like a really poor man's 'The Office', except that Michael Scott is fun and exciting to look at, and gives you a 'pleasant feeling' about her face, whereas this hag with her weird eyebrows, too much make-up, bulgy eyes, weird expressions in a bad way, unrealistic facial reactions, limited acting ability..
..it's just CONFUSING. Why did they put her in the lead? It makes me think she must have blackmailed someone or something. It can't be 'because she slept with the producer', because what producer would choose THAT over someone slightly average-looking or better?
In my opinion, she's too old and talentless for this role, but even that could work if she had 'charisma', but instead, her mug is weirdly ugly for this kind of role. It can 'appear cute-ish' SOMEtimes, but most of the time, she does look like something you do NOT want to look at.
Sorry, but this is a fact.
Well, I wouldn't go as far as 'ugly', but she isn't 'attractive', and the show making all men drool over her is quite the unrealistic stretch.
She's below average, and can be repulsive at times, but she has an interesting look about her, because sometimes she can almost pull off the 'wearing a pretty dress to look cute'-look, even though her face shouldn't technically afford that to happen.
Her face is sometimes unpleasant, sometimes pleasant, so I understand someone looking at her and feeling repulsion, but after watching a couple of seasons, it has grown on me a bit, so I don't really mind her face that much, but sometimes it's a bit jarring because she looks 'pretty from afar' and then BAM! there's a close-up and you start thinking about certain types of canines..
The problem isn't really her looks - she's below average, certainly NOT beautiful (anyone thinking she's beautiful has not seen beauty, or has some kind of brain malfunction), but the problem is that she doesn't have 'charisma'.
Michael Scott, so Steven Carell, actually has amazing charisma, so he's always fun to look at, even though his face isn't exactly Tom Cruise, either. Steven is like a poor man's Jim Carrey in a way, and he can really act and get into a wacky, silly role or scene and still be believable. I could look at Michael Scott 'forever' without getting bored. I would need a really good excuse to keep watching this woman's face.
Someone says that looks do not matter... really? Can anyone be more clueless? Of course looks matter in a friggin' VISUAL MEDIUM that you have to watch to get it. Your eyeballs receive zillions of photons from looks constantly, you are constantly being bombarded by people's faces, so at least they could have those faces be pretty, pleasant, interesting, charismatic or something.
When it comes to men, looks don't matter, because women don't get attracted to looks (despite ALL the claims, even from women), looks matter when it comes to women, because men DO.
It took me awhile to warm up to 'The Office', so maybe I just don't yet get it and it will click at some point.
The problem is, this show is either too silly or too boring, and it doesn't seem to find its footing inbetween to give us something believable and interesting. 'The Office' had its wackiness, but somehow it felt more 'rooted' and 'realistic', even 'relatable'.
The characters in this show aren't pretty enough to look at, quirky enough to be fascinating, have enough personality to be interesting, wacky enough to give you something. As much as I hate Dwight, at least he has an interesting, unpredictable personality that can lead to hilarious things happening.
That show has very 'stable' characters, even the 'unstable ones', if you realize what I mean by 'stable'.
This show doesn't seem to know what to make some character into. Is the moustache guy supposed to be scary? Authoritative? The villain of the show? A weak wimp (with his ex, the woman always wins without the show telling us why - we all know women have 'the power' in relationshíts, but this power dynamic is never explored, even though it would be the edgiest thing you can do in a show)?
Is he a comic relief? Is he a good boss? Is he just mental?
You can't get a good grasp of what he is like. The same with everyone else, except the 'indian guy', who is just 'a pervert' without any other qualities or personality traits. It gets very tired very fast.
What's with the 'politically incorrect paintings'? Is that supposed to be funny? A train running over some indians while the most stereotypical depiction of 'chinamen' (can't use any other word to describe the level of racism in that picture) possible? That's supposed to be the spirit of this dweebtown or whatever it was called?
Another imaginary town name.. sigh. Doesn't anyone have the gall to use some real place for a change?
The worst offence of this show - it seems... pointless. What IS the point of this? All this 'relationship drama'?
So a profitable game would actually HAVE levels and LET the player go through them. The more levels, the better, because motivations for players to put in more quarters can be numerous, not just 'wanting to get to next level even if it does not exist'.
One motivation is 'wanting to see what happens next', and if the game actually lets that happen, THAT keeps the motivation alive. If the player can't see what happens next, motivation dies and quarters will go to other games.
So being able to go through levels actually makes kids pump up MORE quarters than not being able to do so.
Levels exist to reward a player that pumps in more quarters so they can keep playing and learning the game. When you have this reward system, it acts as an addiction-building mechanic that keeps players entranced to your game.
If you just kill your reward system by thinking you are somehow 'clever' by not letting players advance to the next level, addiction dies as well. Not good for business.
We might think his plan is 'evil', but in the end, it's just EXTREMELY ineffective and stupid. Players might not be 'smart', but they are 'knowledgeable', everyone knows EXACTLY what happens in each game soon enough, so they won't pump quarters to a game that doesn't reward them with the next level.
If that plan worked, corporations would have used it in real life. Very rarely they did, because it absolutely does not work.
Getting to another level excites the player, and it's profitable to keep players excited. When the game is (relatively) fair, makes it possible to advance but keeps killing you at certain points, that creates a reward system that keeps addiction alive.
Someone, in real life, played Berzerk for, I think, days (!) until they collapsed and died (if I remember correctly).
Now, that is addiction.
If Berzerk did not let him advance, he would probably not have died playing the game.
Vanderhoff is not only a real moron, but pretty much everything he says about games is wrong
Just to mention a bit about the 'optimal' way of getting players to cough up the biggest amount of quarters..
There are many ways of doing this, I suppose, and these corporations were trying all kinds of ways until, I am sure, they found the optimal ones.
That 'there is no next level' thing would not work very long, because rumours would have spread pretty fast, soon everyone would know you can't get to any 'next level' (though WHAT in the game would even INDICATE there even is a next level? Not explained..).
This would simply mean players would know there's only 'this level' and 'this is all you can do with this game', and get bored and move on to another game. Bad tactic, would not give them optimal profit.
The better tactic that was actually used, is: Make a gosh-darned GOOD game with excellent gameplay, good musics and visually as dazzling and beautiful graphics as you can. Then make sure gameplay is ADDICTIVE (I know people hate using this word this way, but game magazines have been doing it probably since seventies, so get over it) and REWARDING.
Why does Vanderhoff think there even ARE 'multiple levels'?
It's to REWARD the player.
If the player never gets reward, the gameplay becomes dull and unfun, and players will simply go to another game.You can't just try to 'trick' players in some evil way - WHAT would you benefit from that? Is Vanderhoff thinking it is less costly to simply omit levels? Is he thinking the game artists have to be paid less now that they don't have to draw backgrounds, sprites and animations for more than one level? What is the thinking here of not letting players get to the next level, WHAT is he saving here?
I am just saying, what does he think he is profiting from here compared to making a good game where you CAN get to the next levels? Is he saving something by doing this, or does he just want to trick kids? Is he lazy and wants to just pump out simple games as fast as possible so there's no time to make other levels?
Yeah, it takes a 'relatable situation' and then makes it EXTREMELY unrelatable for 'comedy'. It's not a very good movie exactly because it takes 'Murphy's Law' too far.
Gaylord is also a real, cringry jerk, which doesn't help - if you want proof, just watch the end-credit scene where he talks to the camera - can you watch it without cringing?
Every character in this movie is either a horrible half-demon, a jerk, an annoying prick or a bold-faced liar. Think about it - Jack lied to his whole family about his Thai language skills. How much and what other secrets is he and has he kept from 'the ones he loves'? Boggles the mind he could do that.. I could not trust that guy after that. He should NOT be talking about any 'circle of trust' when he doesn't trust his family enough to tell them that, and the family should NOT trust him knowing he has lied to them for ALL THESE DECADES!
Yes, I said every character, even the cats are jerks.
It's like.. how naïve do you have to be to just blindnly believe those that would benefit most from lying..?
Some coincidence might be believable, but these two certainly aren't.
How does someone come up with 'Lucy in the Sky' (with diamonds or otherwise - why wasn't it any of the other gemstones, like emeralds, aquamarines, ambers, sapphires, jades, rubies, etc.. how did it JUST HAPPEN to be 'diamonds'? What kind of sense does it make to say 'Jack in the Clouds with Rubies'? You see my points? That Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ONLY makes sense as a reference to LSD, and these people admitted to using it, using drugs, and they lived in the hippie drug-era anyway, so if you want to believe it's a coincidence, you basically count 1+1+1 = 2. That doesn't compute.)?
I mean, what are you thinking as an admitted drug-user songwriter during an era where mind-expanding psychedelic substances were celebrated, when you write 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'?
Yeah, sure, just a friend... that's how people always write about their friends. My friend Doherty was in Quasi-Space with Orange Ambers, but somehow that doesn't make any sense or create any kind of drug reference.
No matter how you turn it around, the only way it can even approach anything that might make any sense, is the LSD-reference.
Just because the songwriter does not ADMIT something, doesn't mean they were not doing it. It's like a corporation admitting to murdering kids in a faraway country - OF COURSE they are not admitting it or their stocks will plummet. Whether they're actually DOING it is completely separate from what they claim.
Drugs like that also impair thinking ability and memory, so they might even sincerely believe they did not mean those references, even though at the time, they absolutely did. There's no way of knowing 100% without using some kind of ESP ability, which could as well be the result of ingesting powerful psychedelic substances and so on..
As always, there are multiple sides to a story, and you are a FOOL, if you just believe someone just because they 'say so'.
Let's examine a few things; which would benefit the 'creator' - admitting that they made a song that glorifies drug usage and decadence, violence and crime it leads to, or lying that they actually were completely innocent, and the 80 separate, VERY obvious allusions to such are ALL just super rare coincidences..?
When you look at the 'evidence', as someone said, then listen to what they say, well.. people are known to LIE. People in this movie lie quite a lot throughout the movie. People lie.
It is, of course, possible... but how likely is it? That's another story. Who writes a song that includes terminology like 'magic dragon', 'puffing', 'papers', during a well-known hippie drug era, and has absolutely NO idea it could be interpreted that way? Come on. It HAD to be deliberate at least on SOME level.. if nothing else, then sub-consciously.
So you saying it so surely is a bit foolish, as you can't REALLY know, can you? You only have their word against the evidence, and believing someone's word that would mean you have to SWALLOW THAT MANY COINCIDENCES... sorry, but that makes you a fool.
At LEAST take it with a grain of salt, as an 'unlikely possibility', but don't just BELIEVE someone that CAN LIE (the word 'lie' is even in the word 'believe') and who benefits from lying.
As far Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds - sure, people just write these REALLY obscure, weird, unlikely, strange, odd names that already indicate they were on SOMETHING when they came up with that (Lucy in the Sky? What the heck kind of sense does that make? Why add 'diamonds'? Why is there no verb there? What is Lucy doing in the Sky, how did she get there, are the diamonds there separately, and who put them there, and how can they all defy gravity and and and.. this makes no sense unless you are either on drugs OR writing about drugs).
Either way, it's drugs.
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...
BTW - YES, it (NOT 'HIM') _IS_ a dang ROBOT, not a cyborg, Kyle Reese doesn't know what he's talking about!
Where did he learn to read, by the way? Do they have schools in that crappy future, even though there's no TV or food or basically any necessities (although the dogs still look very well fed for some reason..)?