[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on May 24 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on May 24 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

For me it's interesting how they manage to immerse philosophical questions and ideas into the story telling without actually being obvious. Good example is the philosophy of Descartes and Karl Popper. I would be interested in how you mean it is particularly adolescent?

Good question. For my part I find the philosophising in the Matrix movies adolescent because it's all so very obvious; things that any moderately intelligent viewer should have considered in their early teens (a time when you think you're the only person to have ever thought of these things... until you learn better) I would disagree with you that they aren't obvious too; the Warchowskis practically hit the viewer over the head with a large tome marked "Important Questions of Choice, Being and Perception" I, for one, would have appreciated their efforts to say something meaningful far more had they utilised at least a small amount of subtlety in the way they said them, and allowed the viewer tease out, for him or her self, what they were getting at. I mean, ffs!, as much of a fun idea it is for Neo to have a chat with what is effectively the God of the Matrix, to then have that individual then give a long, and frankly rather trivial, expository speech on the nature of free will is just taking the piss if you ask me... It seems to me that a number of the people who have studied philosophy (or at least looked into the subject in a way that's less than trivial) seem to be under the very mistaken impression that those of us who haven't are completely unaware of the questions (and possible answers) therein.

What I read from this is that for you everything seems pretty clearcut when watching the matrix. But everyone is not of the same opinion as you. I believe you are referring to the Architect, right? You interpret that as being obvious that he is supposed to be God of the matrix. When I see that scene, I see a part of the matrix that thinks he has more power than he actually has. He essentially mocks Neo for making a choice based on love - saying he understands humans, but in reality it doesn't seem he understands them at all. As the Oracle says later, the architect is not able to see past any choice. The scenes are more subtle than you seem to be able to percieve, which is ofcourse based on your own choices, which makes it all fine. But Everyone doesn't make the same chocies, and some of us percieve things differently. I am not saying that one way of seeing it is necessarily right and the other wrong, I am saying that interpretation goes a long way. You bring up the concept of God in the matrix - Neo is a sort of God, a savour of sorts, but there are other savours and other God figures, Neo just happens to be the most obvious (for me). For you, it was the architect that was the most obvious God figure. Other divine figures are Morpheus (the god of dream) and Trinity (from the holy trinity). Sure there are some 'hit in the head' concepts, but those are hiding some of the more subtle stuff. Believe me when I say that you haven't scratched the surface yet.

stone monkey, on May 24 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

In the case of the Matrix movies, the writer/directors seem to give this viewer the impression that these movies are the first place that any of their audience could possibly have ever encountered these ideas; an attitude which, in its self-satisfied and self-congratulary approach to it's own cleverness, is very adolescent indeed. Elitism is fine if what you're talking about is actually esoteric, but in the case of the Matrix movies it's not.

They build the movie on a number of already known ideas - that anyone reading philosophy can recognize. Neither have I suggested that the ideas in themselves are unique. What makes the movies strong, at least for me, is the powerful story and subsequently the presentation of the collection of ideas, and how they are immersed into questions and possible answers, forcing the viewer to (hopefully) make their own choices. I could go on here, because it's so much more than that, but I think that is pretty amazing in itself.

stone monkey, on May 24 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

And it really doesn't help the case for the movies that, whilst the makers were backslapping themselves about showing off how clever and well read they were, they still managed to make a bunch of movies that were, plotwise, very dumb indeed. I mean, there are plot holes you could drive a supertanker through. This, again, is somewhat adolescent; showing off about how much you know whilst, in the meantime, making very obvious and stupid mistakes.

Ofcourse you are welcome to think the plot was stupid - but what part of it was stupid? I am intrigued that while I take time to unravel the layers of which plot is the interesting or correct one, others seems to be stuck on what you seem to call the dumb obvious plot. What is that exactly? What's dumb? That Neo selflessly saved millions of people? Searching for the truth? Free your mind so you can see beyond the appearances of the world? Saving people that never even wanted to know the truth, but instead chose the matrix?

About those 'plotholes', I would like to hear them, so I can plug them for you. I find it interesting how you argue that there are no subtleties, yet you think there are plotholes? The fact that you think there are plotholes suggests that you need the moviemakers to spoon feed you the answers, that you aren't comfortable actually figuring out an answer for yourself. Dude, there is no spoon. As Neo would say: the problem is choice.

I like the fact that the creators doesn't spoon feed me the answers in pretty little hollywood presents with glitter and rainbows, I like the down, dirty, gritty intellectual fight to understand what the heck is going on under the obivous surface. I guess we think differently you and I.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 24 May 2009 - 10:54 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Morgoth, on May 24 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on May 24 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

Cheer up Illy, you're kind of scaring me here.

Illuyankas, on May 24 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

MORE BULLET POINTS YAY

1. So you think saying 'You just don't get it' is a valid argument? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Not really, no. I didn't mean to say that it is.

Illuyankas, on May 24 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

2. No-one's said that. And 'you don't get it' coupled with ' my intellectual self is screaming' equals 'I get it and am intellectual, and you don't and therefore must not be intellectual, eg you must be stupid'.

Saying "I don't get why you love the Matrix" and saying "I don't get why you don't get the matrix" is basically the same sentence structure and contains the same meaning. I think it's cute that you give more credit to my version than Tuberski's version, but I honestly didn't mean to say he was stupid for not getting the matrix - I was mocking him for the way he posted that sentiment. I thought that was clear, but apparently it isn't.

That's really not the case. If your sentence is to have meaning, then the right way to say it would be "I do not get why you do not love the matrix" . There's a big difference between not loving a movie and not getting a movie. Or to explain this in Norwegian; det er forskjellen på å like en film og å forstå en film.

I get what you are saying, but that difference is beside the point I was trying to make; with 'same meaning' I didn't mean actual meaning. Jeez I hate discussing semantics, can we get past this please?

[stone monkey]

Well, there's the "You don't like it 'cos you don't understand it argument" again... Thanks for pointing out the meanings of those names for me btw as I'm sure it's very obvious to you that I've never read a book on anything in my entire life... And it would also appear that I'm unable to spot a Christ allegory when one's presented to me too (having obviously never seen a mainstream Hollywood film where the protagonist dies in the end, I guess)

If you're prepared to believe that I regard self sacrifice as dumb go ahead. Off the top of my head though, I should like to point out that Neo's "self sacrifice" in the last movie is inevitable (what with him not actually being an actual human being an' all, having been made by the Matrix itself; which is something the Architect rather blatantly tells him); which could render the nature of the gesture moot, if you chose to think about it that way. It's not his choice, it never has been, despite him thinking it is, he was always going to do it, whether he wanted to or not because that's what he was made to do. So he actually failed in the end, because he didn't grow beyond his designed parameters. So you might argue that all he did was simply know his place. Which is pretty depressing. But again, this is all surface; and again rather obvious.

There are, of course, several readings for these movies that I can think of; and I'm limited by not actually caring enough about them to put all that much thought into finding any more. And possibly the only clever thing the directors have done is to not publicise their own take, which any idiot knows they will have. So forgive me if I agree to differ with you about the level subtlety involved.

Anyway, you asked for stupid plot points, I'll just go for some obvious ones about the machines' energy generation processes as I can't really be arsed to think about this all that much. The biggie has already been mentioned, why don't the machines keep big sacs of twitching flesh in their test tubes to provide the heat energy they need - I'll forestall one of your possible objections by pointing out that I'm well aware it's possible that Morpheus doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and maybe the machines are running the Matrix (and their own processes) on networked human brains. Another is the obvious sunlight above the clouds, so why don't they just build really tall solar collectors, or power satellites, or balloons - I'm also aware the clouds would just have to be some sort of machine eating nanotech or the solution to their energy problems is rather simple and they don't need humans and their costly life support mechanisms hanging around. Then there's geothermal energy, Zion appears to use it; why not the machines? And we're told they have access to nuclear fusion... but they don't appear to actually use it. Odd that. And finally, why haven't they simply strip mined the earth and buggered off into space, we know the sun's still shining, so there's all the energy they could ever need for the next few billion years...

But I'm fairly stupid, so what do I know?


Anyway, films that should have been great; the second Fantastic Four Movie. Galactus, The Silver Surfer; that should have been brilliant... Alas, it was the exact opposite.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 25 May 2009 - 01:33 AM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

ZING!!!!

I really enjoyed the Matrix, one of my favorite scifi movies ever. I don't think there is anything that profound in it though, and like most movies, there are plot holes in it. I still enjoyed it.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on May 25 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

Well, there's the "You don't like it 'cos you don't understand it argument" again... Thanks for pointing out the meanings of those names for me btw as I'm sure it's very obvious to you that I've never read a book on anything in my entire life... And it would also appear that I'm unable to spot a Christ allegory when one's presented to me too (having obviously never seen a mainstream Hollywood film where the protagonist dies in the end, I guess)

Dude, I didn't mean you don't like it because you don't understand it, I was simply pointing out that people see the movie differently.

stone monkey, on May 25 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

If you're prepared to believe that I regard self sacrifice as dumb go ahead.

No, I don't believe that, but you made a pretty good case on it.

stone monkey, on May 25 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

Off the top of my head though, I should like to point out that Neo's "self sacrifice" in the last movie is inevitable (what with him not actually being an actual human being an' all, having been made by the Matrix itself; which is something the Architect rather blatantly tells him); which could render the nature of the gesture moot, if you chose to think about it that way. It's not his choice, it never has been, despite him thinking it is, he was always going to do it, whether he wanted to or not because that's what he was made to do. So he actually failed in the end, because he didn't grow beyond his designed parameters. So you might argue that all he did was simply know his place. Which is pretty depressing. But again, this is all surface; and again rather obvious.

I don't interpret it as Neo is isn't human. He is very much human. I'd stretch it as far as him being genetically modified, though. And if you go by what the architect says, then Neo didn't do waht he was supposed to, if you, still go by waht the architect says, count the fact that he was supposed to 'reset' Zion. What do you mean failed? He saved the entire Matrix, and negotiated the lives of all of Zion. Where do you get the idea he didn't grow beyond his parameters? He was fucking wired to the source in real life, when he shouldn't have been able to. What was going to happen wasn't even clear to the über plotter, the oracle, even though Neo ' made a believer out of her'. Nice theory though.

stone monkey, on May 25 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

There are, of course, several readings for these movies that I can think of; and I'm limited by not actually caring enough about them to put all that much thought into finding any more. And possibly the only clever thing the directors have done is to not publicise their own take, which any idiot knows they will have. So forgive me if I agree to differ with you about the level subtlety involved.

Hey, you're welcome to think it's stupid. But I still think you're wrong about the whole thing being obvious. We interpret the movies too differently for that being the case.

stone monkey, on May 25 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

Anyway, you asked for stupid plot points, I'll just go for some obvious ones about the machines' energy generation processes as I can't really be arsed to think about this all that much. The biggie has already been mentioned, why don't the machines keep big sacs of twitching flesh in their test tubes to provide the heat energy they need - I'll forestall one of your possible objections by pointing out that I'm well aware it's possible that Morpheus doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and maybe the machines are running the Matrix (and their own processes) on networked human brains. Another is the obvious sunlight above the clouds, so why don't they just build really tall solar collectors, or power satellites, or balloons - I'm also aware the clouds would just have to be some sort of machine eating nanotech or the solution to their energy problems is rather simple and they don't need humans and their costly life support mechanisms hanging around. Then there's geothermal energy, Zion appears to use it; why not the machines? And we're told they have access to nuclear fusion... but they don't appear to actually use it. Odd that. And finally, why haven't they simply strip mined the earth and buggered off into space, we know the sun's still shining, so there's all the energy they could ever need for the next few billion years...

But I'm fairly stupid, so what do I know?

You know, that's pretty brilliant. I don't know if I would call it holes in the plotline, though. I haven't really thought about why the machines don't use solar energy, but I'd guess that before they had the power and the ability to build the kind of solar energy they required, they had already build the first version of the matrix, and by then it was just easier to let the matrix run. I would say that almost all the other energy sources you suggest are less effecient in the beginning than just hooking up humans to a freaking machine. As for the twitching flesh theory - it is clear that the humans needed to survive long, and their brain fully function to get the most heat possible. The most effecient thing would be to build a make belief world. Also, since the initial machines were actually human built, there could all kinds of underlying functions causing the decision. Also, since they already hade the matrix up and running, why would they switch energy source, why just not expand? That way they can build more machines. So ultimately, even if they decided to start with another source, they would consider the matrix sooner or later, because, energy greedy as they are, they take over all sources they can find. This means they probably do use all the energy sources you suggest, it's just not pertinent to the story.


But hey, you're welcome to your opinion (read choice) - they're plot holes for you, but for me, they're a challenge. Thanks for playing. :Surprise:

Edit: grammar and spelling

Edit: RLY, yeah, but you discount the whole evil machine variable - they want to enslave human kind for some reason. I think this discussion is beside the point of the movies, maybe it's not so much about efficiency, although one can chalk it down to 'using every energy source available', it's more about the fact that the machines were created by humans and then they took over, created their own world after the war that ensued, using humans as slaves. There could be many reasons why - they're machines after all, not reasonable humans. But still, I like the 'available energy source' theory - that pretty much everything were destroyed in the war - so the machines used the only thing they had available ready for use at the time - the humans. That's why they had to enslave every human around and then breed them, because of the shortage of energy.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 25 May 2009 - 12:09 PM

[Elephant Tamer]

If your going to talk about the energy thing, well, its even more ridiculous than that. Human beings are just not that effecient producers of energy. We depend, on the long run, on solar energy no matter what.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Yeah, When you figure that besides powering the machines, the humans would also have to power the farm they are in, it gets to be a pretty silly idea. Conservation of energy and all that.

[RodeoRanch]

"Alexander" should have been something just fantastic. But it's a total disaster. My classics professor, one of the foremost Alexander scholars in North America, was literally shaking with rage when he described his experience seeing it. Hilarious but sad.

[MTS]

RodeoRanch, on May 25 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

"Alexander" should have been something just fantastic. But it's a total disaster. My classics professor, one of the foremost Alexander scholars in North America, was literally shaking with rage when he described his experience seeing it. Hilarious but sad.

Oh, I know, Alexander should've been bloody amazing, but instead we had to waste 3 hours of our lives, and pay to do so. Not to mention all the historical inaccuracies...

[Paran]

Judge Dredd! I was sooo looking forward to this, especially after seeing demolition man (excluding Sandra Bullock parts... ughh...). How could you screw this up?! Apocalyptic future with bada$$es fighting bada$$es, uber-violence... then you get Judge Dredd talking... lots! WTF?!?!

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Paran, on May 25 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

Judge Dredd! I was sooo looking forward to this, especially after seeing demolition man (excluding Sandra Bullock parts... ughh...). How could you screw this up?! Apocalyptic future with bada$$es fighting bada$$es, uber-violence... then you get Judge Dredd talking... lots! WTF?!?!

Really? I didn't think this movie ever had a chance.

[Gem Windcaster]

RLY, and Elephant Tamer, yeah, but you discount the whole evil machine variable - they want to enslave human kind for some reason. I think this discussion is beside the point of the movies, maybe it's not so much about efficiency, although one can chalk it down to 'using every energy source available', it's more about the fact that the machines were created by humans and then they took over, created their own world after the war that ensued, using humans as slaves. There could be many reasons why - they're machines after all, not reasonable humans.

But still, I like the 'available energy source' theory the most - that pretty much everything were destroyed in the war - so the machines used the only thing they had available ready for use at the time - the humans. That's why they had to enslave every human around and then breed them, because of the shortage of energy. Power plants ftw.

[stone monkey]

I'm not sure why we're still discussing this but: "reasonable humans", I think not. And the energy outlay in putting together a massively inefficient power plant run on humans would far outweigh that from adapting and upscaling their own fusion power sources. This whole plot point is what TV Tropes refers to as Fridge Logic For which you should see here for examples specific to The Matrix Series, they've thought about this far more than any sane collection of people should.

[Gem Windcaster]

Well crap, triple posts, sorry about that, I deleted them now.

Thanks SM, I'll check it out. I wouldn't still call it a plot hole though, ebil machines are still ebil machines. Maybe they just did it because they could. A seemingly lack of motives are not really a plot hole. But maybe that's just me. Granted, I am more than just a little fanatical.

[Illuyankas]

DAMN IT MONE STONKEY I HAD THINGS TO DO THIS WEEK

[Gem Windcaster]

Illuyankas, on May 25 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

DAMN IT MONE STONKEY I HAD THINGS TO DO THIS WEEK

Is that code for you are stoned?

[Illuyankas]

It's code for 'oh crap someone linked tvtropes now I'm going to be following links for weeks', unfortunately.

[Gem Windcaster]

Oh okay, that makes completely sense.

[Macros]

a totally impartial review of the dogshit films that were mtrix 2 + 3


(in b4, old , i know its old, still relavent)

[stone monkey]

Yeah... Sorry about that . TV Tropes will eat your life....