Slashdot Mirror
Harry Potter with Guns
kauff writes "Slate has recently released a somewhat-inspired article
about what the Matrix was. You have to read it for yourself. Good way to
hype yourself up before Reloaded on May 15th."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Good point made about this dark future. While on the surface the matrix is a prison, it is a prison in which you can fly, dodge bullets and jump into the chests of your enemies (without all the trouble that comes with your run of the mill prison made psychedelics).
all I want to know is, if there are hovering robots and a computer reality, is there no space capability? I mean, why don't the machines just purge the faulty human batteries and move into space? plenty of solar power, plenty of room. Besides, regardless of the number of humans you have powering your MMOR (Massive Multiplayer Online Reality) I cannot help but speculate that a nuclear reactor has a great deal more potential for raw power than small to mid-sized mammals...But what kind of a movie is that right?
About 2 months ago a very anti-technology professor of mine pointed out that the reason the matrix is popular is because it tells nerds what they want to hear, that they can still be cool and powerful even if where they are right now is a small room, by themselves, spending 14 hours a day stairing at a computer screen.
I do security
I agree. I personally do not care for for special effects, but I need a good story, and the Matrix was a very good story. Something very original, not your typical clever, good looking, young lawyer that beats the big bad guy. Not as predictible as the average movie either, and the "standard american set of morales" is not necessarely respected, contrary to 90% of movies coming out of Hollywood.
I have met Christians who saw the matrix as a metaphor for God, I personally think it was a modern version of a lot of the Tibetan Budhism teachings (an no I am not a Budhist, but interrested in the different perception of realities both in eastern and western culture).
In the movie, when the hero (Neo ?) is sitting in an armchair, and wonder if everything is fake, and the other hero asked him "what is reality ? Is it waht your senses tell it is to your brain ?" - this is a very "budhist question" (not only Tibettan, but accross the differnt form of budhism), and definitely a very valid question !!
I'll have to say that the movie was good, but the storyline wasn't too hot, and anyone who thinks the dialogue was any good should go read a book. Or better yet, watch the first Wachowski brothers movie, Bound. Now *there* was an excellent movie - tension, humor, drama, awesome cinematography and far better dialogue than The Matrix, all on a shoestring budget on a very limited set. As for watching movies to watch movies instead of reading into them, well, the directors DID want you to read into The Matrix. Did that fly over your head? The problem is, while there is something there, there's not a whole lot of it. See, the storyline was just a mishmash of practically every single piece of popular sci-fi (lit or movie) previously, with a muddy undertone of religious and philsophical musings. While highly entertaining and even groundbreaking in certain considerations, imo, I consider The Matrix to be just short of being among the best. Good scifi is all about the human condition, which The Matrix touches upon, but never really goes into much depth with. It's basically the brain equivalent of eye candy; fun, makes you think a bit, but in the end, you want something real to chew on. Examples of good scifi: Blade Runner (duh), Solaris (original Russian version), The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and anything but Stanislaw Lem or Jorge Borges.
I agreed with you whole-heartedly, until you mentioned blade runner. That is the single most boring sci-fi I have ever had the displeasure to watch. Even Harrison Ford said that the movie sucked. The only reason that movie was ever even remotely popluar was because it was eye candy. The plot was thin, the little "mysteries" were blindingly obvious, and the little bits of action that were thrown in were limited, sporatic, and totaly pathetic. In contrast to blade runner, the matrix is a goddly movie.
Even worse, watch the tv-edit version. It removes the most gruesome shots and the nudity. After that is gone, you have eye candy (which by todays standards isn't eye-candy at all), poor narration (Ford went into the recording studio one day, did the narration ten times and left, and they never went and fixed it), and Ford stubling from bar to bar, muttering to himself.
The androids were cool though, but that can't carry the movie.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
> George Lucas is a bright guy. He worled with noted mythologist Joseph Campbell [jcf.org] in designing the story line for the star wars saga, such that it is most compelling to the largest possible audience.
You know, I used to think George was greatness itself because of the first three SW movies, but now, after seeing the previous two, I think he just got lucky. I don't think he _really_ understands why the first three movies were so good, because if he did, I don't see how in the world the previous two could have been as bad as they were.
And he's certainly not much of an director. Hayden Christiansen _can_ act, but he's one of those iffy actors who requires a good director to get a good performance. Kinda like George Clooney. Put someone like Soderbergh at the helm, and even George Clooney can be a good actor.
Unfortunately, the latest SW films have mediocre writing AND mediocre directing. Great special effects, sure, but the original SW films weren't great because of special effects. The only saving grace out of either of the last two has been the fight scenes! That's pathetic.
*sigh*
That would be Ron, who, if put into the Star wars setting, would, of course, be Han Solo.
:)
:)
Harry Potter = Luke Skywalker
Hermione Granger = Princess Leia
Dumbledore = Obi-Wan Kenobi (duh)
Harry's owl = R2D2
Dobbie = C3PO (maybe)
Heck, there's even a big hairy guy who can be the mighty Chew-ba-cca.
You Know Who = Darth Vader (duh)
Hmmm...Harry Skywalker and the Jedi's Stone? (or Harry Skywalker and the Splinter of the Mind's Eye, if you prefer
EOL
I would dare to angry anybody and say Star Wars is Lord of the Rings a couple of millennia into the future. Same for The Matrix being Harry Potter. But in terms of movies, I think the reverse is equally true. I think LOTR has to be thankful to Star Wars for part of its success, the same way Harry Potter has to be thankful to The Matrix opening the gates to the Magic Hero trail.
However, ancient and future heroes, battle of good and evil, greek, roman, chinese mythology have been part of a zillion good movies. I mean, good vs evil is THE subject of all modern movies. So why doesn't Sixth Sense, Toy Story and Austin Powers generate such an impressive fandom?
Let me wobble over a couple of reasons I think stand behind such a tremendous success as these four movies have inspired:
__________
Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace!
I only saw the Matrix once when it came out on DVD, but I always thought it was sci-fi metaphor for Christianity.
Anderson (which means "Son of Man") is the messiah/Christ who is going to save humanity from the illusion that life on earth is all there is.
In the Matrix (just as in Chrsitianity's teachings) there are good angels and bad angels in our world who are in a constant battle for our everlasting lives.
Some guy came to Keanu's apartment early on and said something like "you're my savior, man"; and later Neo was resurrected by "Trinity" (Father/Son/HolySpirit), reinforcing Neo as the Christ character.
There are plenty of other references like the name of the ship Nebecanezzer (sp) who was the king in the book of Daniel who wanted his dreams interpreted. The traiter's name was "Cipher" (ie. Lucifer). And there's probably a lot more that I have since forgotten.
The most poignent moment in the film for me was when Fishbourne was tied to the chair and the "bad angel" was saying something about how he hates people, that he hates their smell -- and he equates them to a virus. To me, this sounded like something a "fallen angel" or Satan would say to a real person in the same situation.
Anyway, just one guy's opinion. I spotted references to some web sites in the article, "Messiah in Matrix" and knowthematrix.com -- maybe I'll check them out.
Stephen Legge
It's funny... I've been running into this strange attitude a lot recently. I believe it stems from people who really dislike analysis, particularly self-analysis, because they're either not liking the answers they find, or they plain get confused by the whole analysis process.
As well as movies, I've been told to stop analysing humour, and art in general. Apparently it should "just be funny" or "just be good art" without any reasons WHY it is. It's an idea mostly pushed by art students who like to think "i can make up any crap I want and call it art, because i want to".
Of course, years of working with computers and solving problems logically contribute to a mindset with a need for analysis... which probably means most of Slashdot thinks more like I do, right?
Art is often hard to fully understand, because unless assumptions are made it becomes excessively wordy, something like scholarship when it is done right.
In fact, it would be almost impossible to totally understand the meanings of an artwork without being the person who created it. The associations, implications, and assumptions behind an act of expression are a product of that person's mind at the moment of creation.
The further you are culturally from the creator the less the art will speak to you. However there is a loophole, which is all too often exploited.. If you leave your expression vague enough, people will use their natural tendency to assume that all people are more like themselves than they really are, and will fill in the blanks the way they see fit. If the viewer is inclined to see you positively, they'll fill in the blanks with positives, and, presto! you're art is suddenly deeply meaningful. Yay!
Straightforward expression has a much harder time getting across because if it's inherent complexity, but it ultimately explains the world much better.
Dude, we're past the "laugh at us" part... we're on to the "attack us" part.
Next, of course, we, win.
You could've hired me.
For me it would, because the part of the story I was most interested in *was* the "valueless" escapism of the Matrix's simulated reality, rather than what 'evil' AI entity controlled it. I'm in the minority though... being a Singularitarian who views a Matrix-like future of mind-uploads as a GOOD step on the shortening road to Singularity.
Very few know that Bush ordered all investigations of Saudis abandoned several months before it.
(And even fewer people questioned why Bush tried so hard to block the independent 9-11 investigation after-the-fact. Now, I'm no "Bush Knew!" conspiracy theorist, but it was just insane that they would fight an investigation into the deadliest terrorist attack thusfar, unless there were messy details they couldn't risk being uncovered that would jeopardize the 9-11 powergrab gravytrain to follow.)
--
Power to the Peaceful