Slashdot Mirror


First Matrix Reloaded Review

EpsCylonB writes "The IMDB is reporting that the London Daily mirror has the first review of the Matrix Reloaded. Sounds like the Wachowski borthers have gone for an all out action movie which is a shame if true. What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality." I'll hold judgement until the closing credits myself.

421 of 607 comments (clear)

  1. Its a sequel by bmantz65 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Its supposed to make money, not innovate all over again.

    1. Re:Its a sequel by aarondyck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are you saying that it's not possible to innovate AND make money? It seems to me that in the first Matrix movie they were both innovative and money-making! In addition, this movie has been compared to the Empire Strikes Back by the Wychowski bros. (sp?), another movie that both innovated and made money...seems to me that Empire is still in the top 20 all time...and do you remember the scenes with the ships and the guns and the snow and the stormtroopers...cutting edge bluescreen technology, they did things that were unheard of in the movie inudstry at the time. I believe that Matrix Reloaded will be the same...right down to the romance scenes!

    2. Re:Its a sequel by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny
      they did things that were unheard of in the movie inudstry at the time. I believe that Matrix Reloaded will be the same...right down to the romance scenes!

      I don't think that it would be appropriate to include, say, explicit close-ups of anal sex, which is what it would take to shock hollywood at this point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Its a sequel by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you saying that it's not possible to innovate AND make money? It seems to me that in the first Matrix movie they were both innovative and money-making!

      I think you're wrong. Name just ONE innovative factor in "Matrix" - one that was not borrowed from John Woo, "Ghost In The Shell", "Neuromancer", "Superman", Baudrillard, Dick, Stanislaw Lem (cough) etc. I am a big fan of "Matrix", but let us juse our words wisely. Cool? Yes. Entertaining? Yes. Breathtaking? Yes. Worth seeing again and again and again? Oh yessir, just look at my DVD copy of "Matrix". Innovative? Definitely not.

    4. Re:Its a sequel by MrTangent · · Score: 1

      The first one was innovative in what way? While I admit I loved the movie, I feel too many people overlook William Gibson's "Neuromancer" and believe the Wachowski brothers were the first ones to talk about cyberspace in that way. Granted, "Neuromancer" is a lot different but it paved the way for "The Matrix" in many ways, most notably philosophically. Just my two cents.

    5. Re:Its a sequel by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There really is nothing new under the sun y'know, everything is derivative in one way or another. The influences on the music of the beatles are all obvious, but we don't credit those influences for their music do we ?.

      You can take the film apart and analyse each element but the fact is that the Wachkowski brothers were the people who put it all together and brought it to the mainstream. Inevitably they are going to get credit.

    6. Re:Its a sequel by grondu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its supposed to make money, not innovate all over again.

      Do you mean innovate in the dictionary sense, or innovate in the Microsoft sense?

      --

      I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist

    7. Re:Its a sequel by Wintermancer · · Score: 1

      Well, since Ms. Moss is all trussed up in fetish wear, it only stands to reason that she's got the whole meal deal.

      Bite the pillow, Neo!

    8. Re:Its a sequel by ciphertext · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was Matrix the first to use Bullet Time?

      If we are talking about technical innovation, Matrix Reloaded is the first to use true, 3D cinematography and computer generated actors (that look real, not computer generated). The "Big Brawl" scene is the one that is some commonly refernced. I believe that whole fight scene occured within a computer.

      If we are talking about conceptual innovation, or innovation as it applies to storylines, screenwriting, etc... then I don't think that there are many "new" and "innovative" ideas out there right now. My opinion, as to why this situation exists, is that Hollywood (collectively being the movie industry) are more interested in the "assembly-line" approach to movie making. The same plot, different story sort of approach. The "guaranteed" money maker. They only change the template when the viewers become desensitized to the model and cease to pay for movies at the theaters.

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    9. Re:Its a sequel by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      Was Matrix the first to use Bullet Time?

      Two words: John Woo.

    10. Re:Its a sequel by takotech · · Score: 1

      Which John Woo film used bullet time a la The Matrix?

    11. Re:Its a sequel by Peterus7 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hey, what people loved about the matrix was they could see things that could never happen in the real life... The first one offered bullets stopping...

      And the second shows a geek getting laid by a hot chick... Yeah.

    12. Re:Its a sequel by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      ...explicit close-ups of anal sex...

      Passe. To shock Hollywood, it would have to be filmed from the inside.

      To impress Slashdotters, it would have to involve WiFi and a remote, miniature camera hooked up to super tiny web-server-on-a-chip. What would all that be mounted to? Why, a bran muffin, of course....

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    13. Re:Its a sequel by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I don't even think THAT would shock Hollywood anymore. Hell, they've been screwing people in the ass with ticket prices for years now.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    14. Re:Its a sequel by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      " Matrix Reloaded is the first to use true, 3D cinematography and computer generated actors (that look real, not computer generated). The "Big Brawl" scene is the one that is some commonly refernced. I believe that whole fight scene occured within a computer."

      Um no, movies have been doing the 3D cinema for a couple of years at least now. Blade II, for example, had entirely CG people during fight scenes. As for 'not looking computer generated', that's BS too. It's obvious that the 'Big Brawl' scene is computer generated simply because they made a bad shading choice. If they had darkened the image a bit so that the black clothes were actually black (as opposed to gray) it would have looked more like a blue-screen gag. (For the record, I brought that scene into AE and did the color correction. I'm not just speculating here.) Even so, if it looks like blue-screen, then there's still something seriously wrong with it.

      "My opinion, as to why this situation exists, is that Hollywood (collectively being the movie industry) are more interested in the "assembly-line" approach to movie making. The same plot, different story sort of approach. "

      You're close. The movie making format is quite formulaic. There are a few reasons for this:

      1.) They're after the mass market audience, and few things can satisfy everybody. Ever try to order one big pizza for four people? Ferget it.

      2.) The point of making the money is profit, so a lot of studios are run like corporations. So there's lotsa decisions made about raising income n percent.

      3.) Movies are more of a commodity than they are an art-form. Lots of creativity lost in that process to.

      I think the internet could really change this. Your audience can find you at any time. Personally, I'd LOVE to release a movie on the internet. Then I could make it fun for a handful of people instead of trying to dilute it out to a gaggle of people.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    15. Re:Its a sequel by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Was Matrix the first to use Bullet Time?"

      Nope. Lost in Space beat it by a year.

      The technology to do that effect was invented before the movie camera was. They took an array of cameras and had a horse walk by them. They each took a picture in succession. When played back, the horse was walking, and the camera was following it.

      So the technology wasn't invented or used by the Matrix first. Sorry.

    16. Re:Its a sequel by Nick+Douglas · · Score: 1

      The WIRED cover article, May issue (albeit poorly titled) describes technical innovations in Revolutions, including full transition mid-scene of humans into computer generated models, resampling of photography over constructed 3d computer models, and the biggest motion-capture studio ever constructed.

    17. Re:Its a sequel by danila · · Score: 1

      Come on, can't you check the fucking spelling? It was written in the fucking writeup - it is spelled "Wachowski". And I don't know what were the moderators thinking - how a post that amounts to nothing more than a stream of consciousness was moderated to "5: Interesting"?

      And next time you have time to use bold tags in your post, use it to check the spelling instead.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  2. Destiny by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Informative
    I believe it is our fate to read the review.

    It is our destiny.

    I believe this review holds, for each and everyone of us, the greatest spoiler of our lives.

    ** By the way **, the site was already running a bit slow when I previewed this article, so just in case, the article text:

    FIRST REVIEW OF STUNNING NEW MATRIX MOVIE
    May 7 2003
    WORLD EXCLUSIVE
    From Jackie Winter In Los Angeles

    AT THE start of The Matrix Reloaded, Laurence Fishburne turns to Keanu Reeves and says: "This is going to be difficult." How right he is.

    The much-anticipated sequel to 1999's cult classic sees all manner of kung-fu warriors and evil machines thrown at Reeves in an orgy of highly-choreographed martial arts mayhem.

    The Matrix Reloaded picks up where the original left off - but explodes the action and special effects by a factor of 10.

    There are more fights, more crashes and more action in two hours than a hundred other sci-fi movies combined. But the highlight is a spectacular freeway demolition derby which takes car chases to a whole new level.

    And the first film's groundbreaking slow-motion/freeze-frame effects have been further extended, tweaked and enhanced to make them even more eye-popping than before.

    But if you're looking for something a little more than crash, bang, wallop then this second instalment will leave you cold. Reloaded is crammed full of the cod philosophy that fans of the original loved but which left me distinctly unimpressed.

    The plot is even more convoluted than before and flits between everything from religion to quantum physics and mathematics.

    When we last saw Neo (Keanu Reeves), he was preparing to lead a revolt against the machines that had enslaved all of humanity - and that were now threatening to attack the last human city of Zion.

    Recognised by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) as The One, the potential saviour of mankind learned how to manipulate the computer program that is our world.

    Now Neo has honed those skills until he can fly like Superman. It's a skill that comes in handy after he starts having dreams about his girlfriend Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) falling from a city skyscraper in a shower of glass.

    The villain of the first film - Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) - is back with a few new tricks up his sleeve, not least the ability to replicate himself. In one of the key scenes, Neo battles it out with first just one Smith, then eight, then 24 and finally 100.

    Dressed in his shades and robe, Reeves once again deadpans his way through the movie. It's a role made for him as he has to do little more than smoulder and high kick his way through the baddies.

    At least he gets a sex scene with Moss before he heads off to the city of Zion. It's one of the few breaks from the relentless action and although it sounds ridiculous, it provides a welcome diversion from the non-stop effects.

    There's also some new characters like Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith), who captains one of the rebel ships. And Persephone (Monica Bellucci), a sexy bad-girl-turned-good who hooks Neo up with the all-important Keymaker (Randall Duk Kim).

    Also making an appearance are evil twins played by brothers Adrian and Neil Rayment who have, bizarrely, made the leap from handymen on Carol Vorderman's Better Homes to Hollywood stardom.

    If you're looking for a deep, meaningful cinematic experience then The Matrix Reloaded is not for you. But if it's a non-stop rollercoaster ride you're after, then this movie is light years ahead of anything that's gone before.

    - THE Matrix Reloaded is released on May 23. The final chapter in the trilogy, The Matrix Revolutions, is out in November.

    THE Matrix Reloaded and the next film, Matrix Revolutions, were shot simultaneously in Australia over 270 days from 2001 to 2002. Combined, they cost more than £200m - £160m more than the original.

    MANY believe The Matrix is cursed. In A

    1. Re:Destiny by Jainith · · Score: 4, Interesting
      KEANU Reeves turned his moribund career around by taking the part of Neo. But it could have been a lot different. Ewan McGregor and Will Smith both turned down the part before the Speed star snapped it up.

      Hmm...matrix with Ewan McGregor...I can see it, maybe...but not nearly as *cool* as the real one.

      Will Smith, UGH! That would have been a disaster...He would have destroyed what is truely a classic movie!

      Jainith

    2. Re:Destiny by tealover · · Score: 5, Funny

      Someone please save the parent post. It's the only known post to indicate a preference for Keanu Reeves' acting ability.

      I'm sure someone from the Smithsonian will want to archive it.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    3. Re:Destiny by Davak · · Score: 3, Informative
      Shmuck... you lie. The screeners are fake.

      I'll be reported first here when it is finally leeched.

      Heck, it would probably be a freaking slashdot story.

      Stop the rumors...

      Davak

    4. Re:Destiny by darien · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well this is Piers Morgan we're talking about. The Mirror is not widely revered in the UK.

    5. Re:Destiny by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Don't watch it. Boycott it,

      Wow, boycott it for the sake of... your ego? Yeah right. If there was something I thought would cause harm, I would boycott it. Otherwise, it's a movie, get the fuck over it.

      OTOH, if you don't want to risk the huge $7 investment (might need venture capitalists to back you up for that seven bucks), wait until the second day... or second week -- by then, if you ook hard enough, I'm sure you will find someone that doesn't like it, and then you have a reason not to go. Problem solved, everyone goes home happy -- except the ones who lost their shirt (a $7 shirt, mind you) in the "Great Matrix Scam of 2003."

      G.A.L.

  3. Your impression... by dvk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your impression that the first Matrix had any philosophical content was just a glitch in the program.

    -DVK

    --
    "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    1. Re:Your impression... by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      My program is fully debugged then!

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  4. Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Subtle philosophy? More like blatantly obvious and hackneyed oversimplification of philosophy.

    If by philosophy you mean the sort of thoughts you have when you get stoned and are fascinated by the Winamp visualization plugins, then I'll agree. But if by philosophy you mean anything vaguely legitimate on an academic level (I'm talking about old dead Greek and European guys here), then you're sorely mistaken.

    The "message" of the Matrix, if it can be called that, is sort of like Plato's Allegory of the cave, minus any actual intellectualism and plus a lot of guns. Don't get me wrong, it's a helluva lot of fun to watch, but you'd be hard pressed to sell it (or the vaunted "Fight Club") as a "philosophical" movie. The Matrix is philosophy in the same sense that pop music is music.

    Or maybe that's just my arrogant elitist opinion. Mod down if you really want to, I suppose.

    1. Re:Oh come on by still_sick · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's odd that you chose to mention Plato's Cave in your rant, rather than the "Mad Scientist" / "Evil Demon" / or "Brain in a Jar" problem, each of which being essentially the actual premise of the movie.

      A very very very quick summary for those who didn't waste time in Philosophy classes (like me :) :
      - Plato's Cave poses the idea of some people being bound in a cave in such a way that the only things they can see are shadows on the back of the wall. These people are in this situation for their whole lives, and so to them, the entire world consists of shadows on a wall. Anyone who tried to tell them that the shadows are being created by 3D beings in a whole big bright world out there would be immediately dismissed by them as a lunatic.
      - The "Mad Scientist" / "Evil Demon" / "Brain in a Jar" problem are all the same question - how do you know "reality" as you know it really exists? How do you know you're not imagining everything? The "Mad Scientist" and "Brain in a Jar" are two names for the same variant - what if you're nothing but a brain in a jar being poked/prodded by a Mad Scientist such that he's making you THINK that your reality exists. The "Evil Demon" is the exact same idea, but posed way back in Plato's time - what if the entire world the way you know it is nothing but a trick being played on you by an Evil Demon?

      --
      ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
    2. Re:Oh come on by spoonboy42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny, I always thought the Matrix was more like Descartes' "Malicious Demon", who has conspired to decieve an individual from birth into believing in an utterly false conception of reality. Starting by assuming that the existence of said demon is possible, Descartes began to reason that only his own internal thoughts were not suspect (and even then, his thoughts must have been colored by perception. Who is to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is not itself a deception?). This led to his eventual famous formulation: I think, therefore I am.

      I could go on at length about his "ghost in the machine" concept here, but I'll hold my tongue, as I don't feel like typing all that. Suffice to say, the Matrix has a good number of Cartesian themes.

      Anyway, the Matrix isn't meant to introduce genuinely revolutionary concepts in Philosophy. It does, however, serve as an excellent vehicle for conveying Philosophical concepts in an entertaining, easily accesible way. Plato himself did this by writing dialogues: Sure, he expoused all sorts of interesting ideas in works like the Republic, but he related them much more fluidly in the dialogues (except for Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, which were really about his teacher Socrates). No, the Wachowskis aren't possessed of Socratic wisdom, but they are much like the great poets whom Socrates questioned: they have an intuitive knowledge of their art, and through their work they introduce the masses to ideas that they wouldn't ordinarily come across, and this is definately a *good thing*.

      --
      Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
      Andy Grove: "Not Much."
    3. Re:Oh come on by 11223 · · Score: 1
      Who is to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is not itself a deception?

      Stupid answer: me, because I didn't dobut mathematics and now have a $ADVANCED_WEAPONRY of my own pointed at your head.

      Non-stupid answer: those numbers are really just symbols - it doesn't matter what you call them so long as it's the same every time. If your mode of thought is totally lacking in consistency, then, well, I'm not sure how you manage to operate a computer.

    4. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or maybe that's just my arrogant elitist opinion. Mod down if you really want to, I suppose.

      Is that your sig?

    5. Re:Oh come on by spoonboy42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course it has Cartesian themes. It's a Matrix, after all.

      I apologize for the prior lame math joke in response to my own post and hereby hang my head in shame.

      --
      Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
      Andy Grove: "Not Much."
    6. Re:Oh come on by BTWR · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm talking about old dead Greek and European guys here

      Last time I checked, Greeks were Europeans too...

    7. Re:Oh come on by theLOUDroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe that's just my arrogant elitist opinion. Mod down if you really want to, I suppose.

      It is. "The Truman Show" is Plato's allegory of the cave. "The Matrix" is a different concept.

      But if by philosophy you mean anything vaguely legitimate on an academic level (I'm talking about old dead Greek and European guys here), then you're sorely mistaken.

      Wow. I wasn't aware that you had to be a dead greek or european to have "legitimate" ideas about philosophy. Holy ethnocentrism batman! I suppose you're willing to just ignore any sort of eastern philosophy? Or is it just that you have to be dead before your ideas are worth anything?

      While "The Matrix" wasn't an old, dusty book, it sure was a legitimate discussion of certain philosophical ideas. Maybe you're just too easily distracted by action sequences.
      It didn't contain any truly revolutionay ideas, but I don't think Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" did either. Both were a good story, that people can actually grasp. Who do you think they're both so popular?

      I suppose you're so eager to belittle "The Matrix" since it means people can get access to certain ideas that you had to learn in a more painful manner. No one could ever learn anything worthwhile except from a book that was written by a dead white guy. Geez. Who educated you?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    8. Re:Oh come on by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      And to the original poster,
      BAM!

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    9. Re:Oh come on by weston · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Subtle philosophy? More like blatantly obvious and hackneyed oversimplification of philosophy.

      Oversimplified? Maybe. Muted? You bet. But:

      1. This is a story told in film. The premise isn't a vehicle for detailed philosophical discussion, it's for the story.
      2. The premise, however, is one of the first full illustrations of the "brain in jar"/"shadows on the wall"/"evil demon" philosophical themes that some people are going to encounter. Philosophy students are going to find only very well-trodden ground -- but wasn't it terribly interesting to even them before familiarity bred contempt?
      3. Furthermore, there's some interesting angles that most people totally ignore. Why would a demon keep your brain in a jar and torment you? There's evilness/enmity and that's a possibility. But in the Matrix, there's utility derived from doing so -- supposedly energy, maybe computational work. The former premise is so ridiculous to anyone who knows what's going on you wonder why they made it. I wonder if they did it to draw attention to a potential analogue: in this world, in 2003, you are plugged into a system. It's not a evil AI made VR, it's society. And it may be there are forces at work in that society that exist to keep you working as little other than a happy cog... you could use the analogy as an examination for socio/political commentary, if you like.
      4. Buit the movie doesn't seem to, really, and in fact, the movie's peripheral treatment of philosophical elements may have been one of the wisest possible moves. And akin to what Lewis and Williams and especially Tolkien liked to do: don't work with analogy so much as archetype, and not even archetype so much as simply story. It's not about creating a symbolic tapestry that the initiated can have a field day swimming in and decoding. It's about creating a compelling experience that people can taste and draw meaning out of.


    10. Re:Oh come on by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I suppose you're so eager to belittle "The Matrix" since it means people can get access to certain ideas that you had to learn in a more painful manner.

      Oh please. The Matrix was loads of fun - but that's all. Nobody could possibly learn the first thing about philosophy from a movie like this, unless your idea of 'learning' in this case consisted of smoking a few joints before going to the theater, or perhaps dropping a hit or two of acid instead.

      The 'philosophy', such as it was, just sets up the theme of the movie and rationalizes Neo's godlike powers at the end. Great - that works! But to claim that the hackneyed, sophomoric concepts bandied about constitute anything more than intellectual masturbation is absurd.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    11. Re:Oh come on by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Evil Demon question was posed a little later than Plato's time, by Descartes.

      --
      No comment.
    12. Re:Oh come on by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      "Simulation and Simulcra"

      Ironically, Neo has hollowed-out the book and uses it to store illicit data.

      Well, I guess the true irony is that the book didn't exist in the first place, but that's another story.

    13. Re:Oh come on by sparkz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Heard of Google?

      You can find Buddhism, Christianity, both Buddhism and Christianity, and tons more.

      Last time I google'd, which was a year or two ago, many more (and, might I say, better) articles were found by Google on the first few pages.

      The obvious stuff: Zion, Trinity, NeoOne, even more at Raiders News. It may be news to some at /., but "Oracle" isn't only a database, too...

      Basically, the film (great as it is) has borrowed from just about everything it can find. Its great achievement is combining all these things into a single, reasonably coherent film. Let's hope the next are as good, and not just "But what if a computer-created bus had no breaks" and "What about a cruise ship?"

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    14. Re:Oh come on by fsmunoz · · Score: 1

      If by philosophy you mean the sort of thoughts you have when you get stoned and are fascinated by the Winamp visualization plugins, then I'll agree.

      For this alone I would mod you up!!! I've added it to my repertoire of "spontaneous answers to stupid questions".

    15. Re:Oh come on by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that this movie wasn't created for academics? It was made for enigineers and programmers and salesmen and construction workers, basically anyone who wanted to watch.
      This movie does allow people that would have normally fallen asleep after five minutes of a philosophy class to start thinking about philosophy. Maybe they will take that farther, maybe they won't. Does it really matter?

    16. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I find it hard to believe that Descartes would find many similarities between matrix and his philosophy.

      Descartes use of the Malicious Demon is used as a starting point to create a his philosphy unbiased by previous knowledge. He is concerend with the fact that he is biased by experience, that he could forseeably be mistaken about anything. So what he does is set up a bunch of proofs based on doubting everything. To build a base for the cogito to be a matter of fact. Forumulated simply 1) the malicious decieves me into thinking that i exist 2) If the malicious demon is decieving me i have to exist.
      This has very little to do with the matrix at all. In fact it completely contradicts Cartesian themes, things in the Matrix are not extended. And the themes in the matrix are rarely about object but rather the mind.

      The main problem in the matrix is known as the "mind body problem." How does the mind connect to the body, if there is a mind at all. The matrix is more of a tiered system. When morpheus asks neo "what is reality." He mentions that its only electric impulses goign through our brains. In other words, All we are are electrical impulses. This is materialist thought by philosphers such as sartre and segelberg. In the real world they are constrained to what the material rules are. But inside the matrix it is no longer material, but sensations which they can bend. This is very imperialistic i.e. berkeley and hume. Which leads to buddhism, why neo and the gang can fly and bend rules etcetra. All in all there are elements of all kidns of different philosophies and relgions combined at different levels. Examples are: There is a big element of the Plato's Allegory (Morpheus and others). The Garden of Eden, or in other words ignorance is bliss (blue pill red pill) and more.

    17. Re:Oh come on by sparkz · · Score: 1

      Ahem. Having read a bit more of that RaidersNews one, some of their stuff is rather strange - like "Jesus was resurrected by the power of the Trinity." - Jesus *is* a part of the Trinity; many of these things they get their doctrine wrong; having said that, from reading some other articles on the site, they seem a fair way out of balance with the many doctrines of Christianity, so, when all's said and done, let's just ignore them....

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    18. Re:Oh come on by br0ck · · Score: 1

      As linked to yesterday, Wake Up! Gnosticism and Buddhism in The Matrix is an interesting read. Also, as mentioned elsewhere but not linked, there is an official site for "Philosophy & The Matrix" essays.

    19. Re:Oh come on by weston · · Score: 1

      I saw The Matrix, then the 13th Floor, then Existenz. Each was a better treatment of the subject than the previous.

      Haven't seen the other two, so I might be nitpicking or misreading a normative statement, but... part of what I was trying to say above is that the Matrix wasn't about "treating a subject" per se. It was about telling a certain kind of story.

      Now, it may be true that the other two are better at telling those stories...

    20. Re:Oh come on by smclean · · Score: 1

      Hey, he's right! And Keanu Reeves is still alive!

      --

      "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

    21. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what is philosophy if it is not intellectual masturbation? Really, I could live a perfectly happy and productive life and contribute all kinds of great things to the world without ever having read Nietzche, Ayn Rand or Lao-Tzu. Some people happen to like their intellectual masturbation in the form of philosophy. I happen to like my intellectual masturbation in the form of science fiction novels by people like Verner Vinge, Joe Haldeman and Douglas Adams. To say that the kind of stodgy philosophy taught in college is worthwhile and where as the kind learned from sci-fi novels (and movies like The Matrix) is worthless just shows a lot of elite bigotry and small mindedness.

    22. Re:Oh come on by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      But if by philosophy you mean anything vaguely legitimate on an academic level (I'm talking about old dead Greek and European guys here), then you're sorely mistaken.

      I wager that the old dead Greek and European guys would have heart attacks from sheer shame if they knew that they were still being held up as the end-all and be-all of philosiphy centuries or millenia after their deaths.

      I mean, they spoke in an entirely differnet language for Pete's sake! Is it really THAT hard for modern-day thinkers to elucidate their own quandaries and answers?

      The "message" of the Matrix, if it can be called that, is sort of like Plato's Allegory of the cave, minus any actual intellectualism and plus a lot of guns.

      So, just because it's not snobby means that it can't be philosiphy? Sheesh. There's more poetry in the lyrics of even manufactured pop music than in any modern-day poetry class, and more philosiphy in a dime-store novel than the quote-and-parrot classes they teach in college.

      Anyway, enough of my jabs at elietist snobs. (By what meaure exactly is "pop music" not music? It's the sound that comes from instruments with some singing--it might not be everyone's favorite, or especially timeless, but it's sure as hell "music.")

      The Matrix, and Fight Club, aren't "philisophical." They're a bit metaphysical, but that's something different.

      They're both movies that I call "Mind Fucks." Fun movies that make you think when you see them for the first time, mostly because of a radical shift in perception. (When I saw the Matrix for the first time, I was expecting "The Net" with more action, not a distant-future matrial-arts fest.) "Signs" and "The Sixth Sense" also make the list, for just about the same reason.

    23. Re:Oh come on by Petrox · · Score: 1

      The cave allegory has as much to do with those who remain in the cave as it does with those who get out. From my reading, it's an allegory about education, social structures and leadership (it's no wonder the cave allegory came from 'The Republic', because the book deals with Plato's discussions on political society). In The Matrix, humans who have not been awakened as to their true environment are much like those stuck in the cave--ignorant (but perhaps happily so) as to their surroundings, content to watch shadows play on a cave wall. Those who make it out of the cave, and those who are Plato's philosopher-kings, are surely supposed to remind us of Neo et. al. who have 'seen the light.'

      --
      sig my booty, check my website
    24. Re:Oh come on by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd also like to point out a few things you missed:

      1) The people who are gifted enough to leave the "cave" first poorly adjust - see Neo in new environment. The people who return, in order to "liberate" the caged are laughed at, and told that the true light has blinded them, as they are unable to identify the objects on the wall.

      2) The "Philosophers", the ones who see the true light, are reluctant but feel obligated to return to the cave in order to free them, much like the characters in the matrix, who face countless obstacles but still persist.

      The Cave Allegory is quite well played out in the Matrix. Don't be so quick to bash his comment.

    25. Re:Oh come on by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Is there a spoon boy? There is no spoonboy42.

    26. Re:Oh come on by Xeo2 · · Score: 1

      The "message" of the Matrix, if it can be called that, is sort of like Plato's Allegory of the cave, minus any actual intellectualism and plus a lot of guns.

      It has nothing to do with the Allegory. It's a common misconception.

      Have you ever even read the Allegory?

      --
      ___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
    27. Re:Oh come on by two_ply · · Score: 1
      For everyone complaining about the lack of philosophical depth in the original Matrix, I've only got two words for you: Action and Movie.

      There jhave been many high rated comments talking about how 'Descartes did it first' and that The Matrix manages to only scratch the surface. Of course it does! It's a movie. If they were going to cover the "What is real?" ground as deeply and effectively as Descartes, they would have to sit down and read Descartes in the movie. One of the most vital rules of filmaking is 'show, don't tell'. Not only would a deep philisophical discussion feel like the plot hitting a brick wall, but it would only serve to alienate the (general) audience.

      This is not to mention that any such detailed analysis would still lack depth (they've only got 2 hours), and wouldn't serve to further the plot -at all-.

      Don't gt me wrong, I'm not saying that the Matrix exists on levels untold, or that 'The Brothers W' should be praised throught time for their massive creative insight to have come upon all these ideas. Of course they ripped of Hong Kong action movies, comic books, philosophy, tried and true Sci-Fi cliches. But how many movies DON'T rip off stories that have been around for eons? "That romantic comedy was hilarious and heartwarming, but come on! People have been hooking up in literature for aaaaggeees. How dare they think it's new?!". I think The Matrix should be evaluated on it's merits. They managed to blend a lot of genres, ideas, and cinematic techniques into something that, while not brain-crushingly new, was a refreshing blend, was interesting, was fun,had some kick ass scenes, and wasn't insulting to our intelligence. How many other Sci-Fi movies have done the same in the last 5 years? You can count them on one hand. How many other big summer action films have ANY philisophical/theological underpining? If you google you can find some rather interesting breakdowns on some of the religious imagry in the movie... again, nothing 'new' or 'PhD level theological', but 'some' is a damned sight better than 'none' which is what 98% of the movies out there have.

      While the philosophies, technologies, and everything else may not have been perfect: at least they were consistent, they justified the action in the movie, and they weren't laughably ridiculous. Never once watching the movie did I think "How the hell did that get past the first review of the script?" or "Why are these people making more money than me when they're -that- ignorant?", which is a whole lot more than I can say for most movies (especially Sci-Fi). Give the Matrix a break... at least they're trying.

    28. Re:Oh come on by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      Subtle philosophy?

      This is the daily mirror we're talking about. Anything above kindergarten is philosophical for their readers, why is slashdot quoting UK tabloid junk press now.

      Whats next, the world weekley news....? :)

    29. Re:Oh come on by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" sorta fits in with the idea of the Matrix, the first chapter, anyway, and interpreted in a literal way. He coined that fantastic phrase, "the desert of the real", actually. He starts off with the suggestion, like the brain-in-a-jar concept, that if a simulation of reality were perfect, we could be "on the map, not the territory," and would not be able to distinguish the two. He then moves to the idea of a possible "hyperreality," a map more accurate than the territory itself, a simulation more real than reality. This is an abstract metaphysical concept to Baudrillard; it is depicted quite literally in "The Matrix."

      The real world is a nightmarish wasteland under a ruined sky. The crew of the Nebuchadnezzar wear dirty, torn rags and eat a substance succintly characterized as tasting like "a bowl of snot." They have to pilot their decrepit old ship through old sewers, hiding from terrifying robotic killers, defended only by a desperation weapon. They don't even know what year it is.

      Keeping that in mind, the Matrix must seem even more alluring to the crew of the Neb. Not only have they actually seen the real world, and been made aware of its hellish condition, but also when they do enter the Matrix, they get to be effectively demigods on earth. The crew jacks in, and is transformed into a team of badasses. Dressed to kill, and heavily, heavily armed to help them accomplish that task, they are the epitome of millennial cool. Food tastes as it should, they roll a sweet ride complete with suicide doors (judging from the trailers for "Reloaded," though, it would appear that the construct program recently had the "Cadillac" patch installed), they in fact know kung fu. (I realize that they would know martial arts in reality as well, but they would be of limited use against giant metal squid machines with plasma drills.) What's more, the laws of physics apply to them only in a very limited sense (and in the case of Neo now, almost not at all). The illusion of the Matrix presents a land of nearly infinite possibility; it is a remarkable form of reality that does not have the constraint of needing to be realistic. Were it not for those pesky Agents and turncoats like Cypher trying to kill them, the Matrix could well be like a paradise. To paraphrase a fantastic line from another great recent movie, they would be as gods among insects. It's not quite what Baudrillard had in mind when he wrote about the hyperreal (in fact, I'm not entirely sure exactly what he meant, given the wording, but I'll get to that in a sec), but the idea is definitely transmitted in the exchange between Cypher and Trinity (as Cypher is unplugging the crew one by one), where Cypher argues that the Matrix could be far more real than the real world.

      It's an interesting idea, that a simulation could be more real than reality itself. If such a thing were arranged, would you ever want to leave? The crew of the Neb are obviously helped out in their decision, as the vast majority of the Matrix can at any time be taken over and transformed into a relentless killing machine that can dodge bullets and punch through walls. But if there were no Agents, it's hard to say whether I'd take the bombed out desert of the real over a perfect computer universe that I could bend to my will. It's hard enough sometimes to pull away from a computer game, which is often a very limited simulation of some part of reality; how on earth could you decide to leave a computer game that could be far better than life in reality could possibly ever be.

      You might argue, like Trinity, that "it isn't real." You're right. It's better than reality, more than reality. As even Morpheus, the zealot trying to free all humanity from its "prison," admits, "reality" is defined by "electrical signals intrepreted by your brain." In the desert of the real, these electrical signals transmit that the world involves ugly clothes, disgusting food, plugs in your body, and hiding in sewers from killer robots.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    30. Re:Oh come on by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      That's okay. There is, after all, no spoon.

    31. Re:Oh come on by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      For instance, he compares the realities of the Vietnam War to simulations that have perhaps twisted their reality in the public mind- "Apocalyse Now" and "The China Syndrome," respectively. There should be a reference to Three Mile Island somewhere in that sentence- I'm aware that "The China Syndrome" has nothing to do with the Vietnam War. My bad.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    32. Re:Oh come on by leshert · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, Greeks were Europeans too...

      They are now. At the time that they were living, there was no significant culture of Greater Europe as there was during the time of Descartes, so it's not at all incorrect to refer to them separately.

    33. Re:Oh come on by revery · · Score: 1

      Comparing philosophy to intellectual masturbation is like comparing healthy living to daydreaming

      --

      Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
      or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

    34. Re:Oh come on by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, Greeks were Europeans too...

      Ancient ("Classical" or "Hellenistic") Greece and post-Renaissance Europe are distinct cultures, altho' of course a lot of Renaissance thinking was a continuation of what the Greeks started.

    35. Re:Oh come on by Magius_AR · · Score: 1
      10 point post combo. I'm impressed :)
      That's like the Slashdot equivalent of a tetris :)

      Magius_AR

    36. Re:Oh come on by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Wow... the first time an anonymous coward is truly seen as a COWARD... afraid to admit, finally, that the US is not some evil country - oh no! (I get a kick out of people calling Bush a "terrorist" - right away it makes them lose allcredibility). To think that 100% of the population in Iraq loves the US there is just as naive as to think that 100% don't want them there. The people are infinately happier that the US is there, in my opinion. Again... in MY opinion.

      You are naive and ignorant if you think that either one of us has an idea of the TRUE feelings of the Iraqi people. We both see what we are shown. If you can;t admit to that, you are as close minded as anyone on the far left OR right.

    37. Re:Oh come on by objekt · · Score: 1

      "The "message" of the Matrix, if it can be called that, is sort of like Plato's Allegory of the cave..."

      Plato's Simulacrum makes an appearance in The Matrix. Right around when the kids come to Neo's apartment.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    38. Re:Oh come on by mikenb · · Score: 1

      you are an elitist schmuck who wants to make himself appear intelligent by downing something that other people like. Grow up.

      --
      "Sometimes the most intelligent statement is the one that is left unsaid"
  5. Re:A review I shall not read by benna · · Score: 1

    I am proud to say I have seen no trailers at all. I'm gonna see it cold release day (or before).

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  6. Philosophy and the matrix... by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first Matrix did have some ideas that were distinctly philosophical in nature - to (poorly) summarise "how do I know what is real, and what does 'real' mean anyway"? However, the questions have been asked, and answered, pretty much the same way in a great deal of other fiction. It's philosophical, sure, but it's well-trodden ground.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by kamikazichaser · · Score: 5, Funny

      but that question was simply there to set up the action, not enlighten or challenge you. I loved the first one, but it was pure escapism, nothing more. if this movie is 10 times the action and 10 times the SFX, as the mirror reviewer states, then it will be 10 times the movie (ideally speaking of course). Hell, I want people to be passing out in the theater due to the action!

    2. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by goatasaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try Descartes' Meditations if you want to check out the OG of questioning.

      As Plato said in Phaedrus, "the writer cannot determine his audience". and I have a feeling that most people who enjoyed The Matrix won't be able to handle lofty philosophical concepts, much less a fiercely logical structured argument for the existence of God and reality, without constant diversions in the form of gun battles, sex scenes, and other forms of violent eye candy.

      --
      ~D:
    3. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by lpret · · Score: 1
      I read the review, and it seems the author wasn't a big fan of the philosophy bit in the first Matrix:

      Reloaded is crammed full of the cod philosophy that fans of the original loved but which left me distinctly unimpressed.

      I was distinctly impressed by the melding of the philosophy in the first one (is cod some British adjective for stupid?) and so whatever this guy has to say about the second one in regards to it's philosophy, I am completely able to disregard.

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    4. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Verteiron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is off-topic and will probably be moderated as such, but can you point me to an example of a fiecely logical structured argument for the existence of God?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    5. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The philosophical musings of the first one weren't any deeper than you'd find in the ramblings of a wet-behind-the-ears freshman taking a required first-year course in the subject.

      Really, the 'philosophy' of the Matrix was just a set up for the theme of the movie. There was nothing at all 'deep' to it, unless your normal fare of this stuff consists of the questions Seinfeld asks during his stand-up routine at the end of his horrid show.

      What's depressing is that so many people seem to think the crap that was in The Matrix consisted of Important Questions About Existence(TM). That says more about the educational system than anything else.

      But I wouldn't sweat it. The Matrix was great, brainless fun, and that's exactly as it should be.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    6. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by funkhauser · · Score: 1

      Decartes' Meditations... read what you're replying to. It's useful.

    7. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      >...sex scenes, and other forms of violent eye candy.

      Damn, I gotta learn your secrets!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    8. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by alienmole · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We must have different definitions of "logical". Descartes' Meditations doesn't conform to anything recognized as logic in the modern world. You can call it philosophy, but not logic.

      It's full of unsupported statements like "For there can be no doubt that God possesses the power of producing all the objects I am able distinctly to conceive", and early on, he admits that "the belief that there is a God who is all powerful, and who created me, such as I am, has, for a long time, obtained steady possession of my mind". IOW, it is a profession of faith, and at best, a philosophical justification thereof.

      So no, Descartes Meditations cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as a "fiercely logical structured argument for the existence of God and reality". A fiercely logical argument would tear that work to shreds, as important as it might be in the history of existential thought.

    9. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I have a feeling that most people who enjoyed The Matrix won't be able to handle lofty philosophical concepts
      That's not exactly fair. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of most philosophical subjects, which includes a degree in the field. The Matrix is a scenario that is impractical to implement but nevertheless a rich source of discussion in philosophy. Of course, it's been done before. The 'Brothers are by no means the first to think of the idea. Way before them was the idea of a "brain in a vat" that would live a simulated existence. The possibility of such a brain leads us to question what we can call real. Is our entire life just simulated? Would we be able to tell? Does it even matter? These are important questions. You are being too dismissive to just say that the Matrix has no philosophical content. It might not have any new philosophical content, but that does not leave it stripped of anything worthy of discussion.
    10. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Decartes' Meditations... read what you're replying to. It's useful.
      Logic is destructive, not constructive. It leads us from contradiction, but lends us no positive conclusions. Nothing that is not a tautology follows from logic. Is God a tautology? Not any "God" that does any meaningful actions. So there can be no logical proof of God's existence.
    11. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only one of Descartes meditations that made sense was the first one. The rest rested on very large assumptions. Many people in philosophy think that he bunged up the first one as well, but I've never seen someone argue that successfully. It's usually because they assume that Descarte's "I" implies a "soul" with all of it's trappings. If you don't take it as that, I find that the Descarte's first meditation is one of the only self-evident truths, but sadly you can't get beyond that. Descarte tried but failed miserably.

    12. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the shallowness of the philosophy in the Matrix makes it so that you can safely say "the Matrix has no philosophical content". It can spark a philosophical discussion, but so can my three-year-old.

    13. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the shallowness of the philosophy in the Matrix makes it so that you can safely say "the Matrix has no philosophical content". It can spark a philosophical discussion, but so can my three-year-old.
      Does The Matrix make cogent philosophical arguments? No. But I'd say it's ability to "provoke" discussion is a little better than your three-year-old. Things such as The Matrix exist primarily as philosophical ideas, whereas your three-year-old has a lot more going for him/her than being a subject of philosophical discussion.
    14. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What's depressing is that so many people seem to think the crap that was in The Matrix consisted of Important Questions About Existence(TM).
      I don't understand. Isn't something like "the matrix", or "a brain in a vat" exactly the type of idea we want to consider when trying to determine what the ultimate nature of reality is?

      Let's consider a simulated environment so good that we could not determine it was simulated. How then could we call it simulated? We would have no evidence of it being simulated, and so all of empiricism would have us call it "real"? But in this hypothetical example what is, by all available evidence, called "real" is not real. And our means of obtaining knowledge cannot allow us to answer this question. So is there even a distinction to be made between the simulation that is experienced "as real" and what "really" is?

      The distinction is false, and leads us into the mysterious realm of anti-realism. You should read a few proponents of the subject, such as Hilary Putnam and Michael Dummett, before you disparage it. Not saying these philosophers would enthusiastically embrace the movie "The Matrix", but the type of hypotheticals considered in the movie are critical to, say, Hilary Putnam's anti-realism.
    15. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Vann_v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've hit the nail on the head. The problem with most philosophical "proofs" of God's existence is that they proof a God wholly different from the one we "want." Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion goes over this pretty well, and Kant's moral argument for the existence of God is one of the few "proofs" that actually presents us with the God we "want."

      I say "want" for the very reason that, of course, different people want different gods. Take it as you will, and forgive me for possibly being incoherent -- I need sleep.

    16. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by jtdubs · · Score: 1

      The brain-in-a-vat theory is untestable and unfalsifiable and is hence meaningless philisophical masturbation...

      Justin Dubs

    17. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 1
      The brain-in-a-vat theory is untestable and unfalsifiable and is hence meaningless philisophical masturbation...
      The entire point of the brain-in-a-vat scenario is that it is untestable and unfalsifiable. Where you call it "meaningless" you would have a friend with the anti-realists. Anti-realists basically deny metaphysics, which is a pillar of philosophical discussion. When you say that anything unfalsifiable and untestable is "meaningless", you are also denying metaphysics. You are denying that there is an "ultimate reality". And this is not without controversy. So dismissing this discussion is to claim some very interesting and controversial theses.

      So try as you might to avoid philosophy, you can't. Philosophy is inherent in our thought, in our actions, in our way of life. Many people never formalize their thought processes enough to even consider things like "the matrix". That's what makes this movie so novel to so many people.
    18. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by abhisarda · · Score: 1

      I really have to disagree with your view that Seinfeld is a "horrid show". Have you seen the show yourself or are you making fun of it just for the heck of it?

      Seinfeld was not meant to be anything in the first place. It managed to entertain so well that other comedies could not even come close to it. Comedy would'nt exist if everybody considered themselves know all like you. Would George be entertaining were he not potrayed as a bungling no good man? Probably not. Your comments just show how brainy you *think* you are.

      You state The Matrix as "brainless fun".
      This would mean that good movies come along only once in maybe 7-8 years. I think not. Granted that the immersive intellectual jigsaw presented in the first 40 minutes could have been better utilized later in the movie, it does quite a good job.

      I could have replied to your comments as an AC but it would been injustice to your really lopsided views.

    19. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by jellybear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree.

      Matrix:
      philosophy=1
      action=1
      escapism=1
      ove rall=1*1*1=1

      Matrix reloaded:
      philosophy=0
      action=10
      escapism=10
      o verall=0*10*10=0

    20. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by benzapp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ahh, and pray tell, what philosophy have you read in your life?

      No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not. Western philosophy has realized for some time that the best way to control men's minds is to present to them a false reality. This is in fact one of the dominant themes in Nietzsche, that morality and tradition were created as tools of enslavement.

      Today, the method is through education and corporatism. Enslave the mind and you have no need for shackles.

      I would estimate that less than 1% of Americans are familiar with this concept as outlined by Nietzsche, you among them. The matrix presents this in a fantanstic way, and has the means to convey this important lesson to the viewer.

      Would I rather have people read Beyond Good and Evil and The Geneology of Morals? Certainly, but that won't happen. Perhaps your inability to see any wisdom in the movie speaks of your own ignorance. What you believe to be philosophy is nothing more than jibberish... Modern philosophy seeks to answer more than simple and ultimately irrelevant metaphysical questions. That is for the buddhists and new age folks.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    21. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Math is untestable and unfalsifiable. It is true because it was defined to be true. Does that make it meaningless?

    22. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by forgotmypassword · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are making a false conclusion from true statements. You can see this everyday in mathematics. You can start with some axiomic set of definitions and work your way into proofs of incredible theorems. Now, logically, you have nothing more than the definitions that you began with - but you can do so much more and your understanding is so much greater.

      There was a school of thought centered upon your very argument. They were ant-logic and anti-science. I can't remember their name, but they were mostly debated into oblivion a long, long time ago.

      And proving that there can be no proof of a God that performs meaningful actions is infinitely more difficult than you claim. Especially when you do not define God.

    23. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by jtdubs · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is equivalent to "the alphabet can't be tested." The alphabet, just like mathematics, makes no predictions and hence there is nothing to test.

      However, mathematical equations can be used to model physical phenomenon, and can hence make predictions about the behavior of those physical systems. This field is called Physics. These predictions can be tested and verified.

      The "brain in a vat" theorem can make no predictions, and hence can not be tested.

      Justin Dubs

    24. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Logic and a concept of God are not mutually exclusive things. Ask Einstein.

      So by your recogning. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Zeno, and the whole classical gang has nothing to do with "modern logic"?

      Just because modern scientific/relativistic/atheist views don't support God, doesn't mean that logic doesn't, or can't. Just look at Aquinas argument for the existance of god, and you see a perfect, beautiful logical constrution.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    25. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by kamikazichaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who the hell said that that was the equation to make a good action flick? Look, I know this is subjective, but I think it does a disservice to serious movie makers (actors, directors, etc) to assume that this movie needs poignant character relationships or an important message.
      Granted, I prefer an action film have a bit more than guns and gore, but I certainly don't need a deep meaningful discussion on "why." All I need for a really good action flick is a little character development (so I care who wins), a defined setting, and a coherent plot. Once you have that, you just add action and stir.
      In an action flick, plot and setting are there to move the action along. Everything else is just too subtle to play in a film like this.
      If you want cyberpunk with philosophy, go read a Gibson novel.

    26. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by curunir · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but you used standard multiplication...with "Matrix" multiplication a single zero doesn't zero out the entire result...

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    27. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Textbook+Error · · Score: 2, Informative

      No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not.

      Er, not quite - that was exactly what Descartes (rationalism) and Berkeley/Lock (empiricism) were all about (as well as nutbars like Heidegger and Kant to a degree).

      This was probably the most significant development in "western" (i.e., european) philosophy at the time, and arguably a lot more profound than Nietzsche's semi-sociological leanings (which are more about his obsession with control than anything else - "if you're going to see a woman, remember to take a whip!", etc).

      If the Matrix takes anything from philosophy, it's the Cartesian method - how do you know that what you perceive is real, and not just put there to trick you? Descarte's answer was that you can't, and the only thing you can ever know for sure is that you, the individual doing the questioning, exists.

      Neo takes it for granted that the reality shown to him by Morpheus is really real, but of course he has no more way of testing that than he did in the original simulation. Ultimately he takes the route of Empiricism, and choses to act in a way that seems appropriate to what he perceives - which of course is exactly what he was doing before.

      --

      Nae bother
    28. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Potor · · Score: 1

      The Matrix abandons its own anti-realist pretences when we learn that the machine eats babies. How do we know this? Because Morpheus saw it with "his own eyes".

    29. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Groganz · · Score: 2, Funny

      But Rene DesCarte was a drunken fart who was very rarely stable.

    30. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by davejenkins · · Score: 1

      Modern philosophy seeks to answer more than simple and ultimately irrelevant metaphysical questions. That is for the buddhists and new age folks.

      I see. So the Nietzsche clown is a genius and the 2500-year old religion is nothing more than granola-types answering dumb questions? How can you put so much effort into one philosopher (and one book) yet not get the overriding thesis of that same philosopher/book?

      Did you ever stop to think that the Nietzchean post-marxist concepts to which you so dearly hold close to your heart are just as much a shackle on your mind?

      Remember when the Oracle told Neo that he'd stay up late wondering about what would happen if she hadn't warned him about dropping the plate?

      Happy sleeping...

    31. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by tuxedo-steve · · Score: 3, Funny

      Score:-1, Uppity masturbation.

      If you think you've got the opportunity to teach people something, learn to do it gracefully.

      --
      - SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
    32. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Groganz · · Score: 1

      Likewise.

    33. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by sunnytzu · · Score: 1

      You do a great disservice to many anti-realists when you say that they deny metaphysics. Logical Positivists, with their verificationalist doctrine, deny metaphysics, but not all anti-realists are logical positivists. Only arch-anti-realists completely deny metaphysics, and it is possible to be an anti-realist about a great many things, whilst still being a realist about others. If you want a good modern account of anti-realism, I suggest you look at Bas Van Frassen.

    34. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by sunnytzu · · Score: 1

      I'd be more careful to state clearly exactly which Hilary Putnam you're talking about, he's got some fairly good papers on realism too!

    35. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by GMontag451 · · Score: 1

      Aquinas? You've got to be kidding me. Aquinas had the logic completely backwards. The idea of every effect having a cause doesn't require a first cause, it expressly denies one.

    36. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Afty0r · · Score: 1
      the idea of a "brain in a vat" that would live a simulated existence. The possibility of such a brain leads us to question what we can call real. Is our entire life just simulated? Would we be able to tell? Does it even matter? These are important questions.


      They are? Other than gaining research grants or qualifications, what possible use can the answers to those questions have, or what value can the work used to answer those questions have?

      I know this might sound like a troll, I'm just curious as to why someone with a degree in philosophy would consider such questions to be important when most of us would consider them trivial.
    37. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by wheany · · Score: 1

      the machine eats babies.

      OMG! The machine is a communist!

    38. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      As Plato said in Phaedrus, "the writer cannot determine his audience". and I have a feeling that most people who enjoyed The Matrix won't be able to handle lofty philosophical concepts, much less a fiercely logical structured argument for the existence of God and reality, without constant diversions in the form of gun battles, sex scenes, and other forms of violent eye candy.

      As Rousseau said in "Confessions", "I like being spanked on bare buttocks by mature women" [no, I am NOT making this up, visit the nearest library to check me].
      C'mon, people. When I go to cinema, I pay at the ticket booth exactly for gun battles, sex scenes, and other forms of violent eye candy. When I want to read some Baudrillard, I know where to find the right book. If "Matrix" offers "violent eye candy" and some quasi-philosophical popcorn as a freebie - it's cool, I don't mind that, but I don't put much value into that, and that's fine by me.

    39. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by dipfan · · Score: 1

      No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not.

      Hello? Well let's see ... Descartes obviously, but more importantly Kant and transcendental idealism, which are probably the most profound influence on philosophy since the ancient Greeks. Pretty much everything since has been a reaction to Kant, including your friend Nietzsche. As well as that, Berkeley's phenomenology, more recently Merleau-Ponty, alongside Wittgenstein, Moore... this is epistemology. There's a lot of it about.

      Frankly, while Nietzsche has lots of interesting things to say about ethics and morality, his "cosmology" is the weaker part of his bag of tricks. Having said that, there is a Nietzschean reading of The Matrix: the "human batteries" represent the Greek chorus, Neo the "superman" steps out of it, like the mad man shouting in the market place that god is dead, he recognises the exisitence of the Matrix .... let's stop there before everyone gets bored.

    40. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by puusism · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not.


      Then perhaps you haven't read enough western philosophy? The father of "modern" philosophy, Plato, believed that the world we see is only an incomplete projection from a world of ideas. His most famous example of this is the cave analogy, where the people in the cave only see the shadows of things in front of the cave entrance, and believe what they see in front of them is all there is.

      Rene Descartes pondered what we can tell for sure about the world around us. His famous conclusion was "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). He meant, that one person may be just tormented by some demon who feeds him sensory information, but by thinking, the person can know for sure that he exists, and only that.

      I think your claim that western philosophy doesn't discuss the reality of the world is false. Reading a few books by Nietzsche doesn't make anyone a philosopher. I would recommend an exellent book "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder as an introduction to the basics of western philosophy.
      --
      - Ismo
    41. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it seems to me that, because what we think of as 'math' is just labels that are applied to certain abstract concepts, it is actually testable. 1+1=2. How can logic deny that?

    42. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by xaaronx · · Score: 1

      Don't know much about Buddhism, do you?

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
    43. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      The possibility of such a brain leads us to question what we can call real. Is our entire life just simulated? Would we be able to tell? Does it even matter?

      I think that last question was the one that I thought was most interesting. There is an old philosophical concept that if a man spends his entire life in one room he will never miss what he doesn't know about. As cypher said in the Matrix, "gnorance is bliss".

    44. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      If it isn't making money then what use is it ?.

    45. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by xaaronx · · Score: 1

      I wanna be an anti-realist. It just sounds cool as hell.

      On a more serious note, is this something different from nihilism?

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
    46. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by xaaronx · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, do you preview your posts?

      "Seinfeld was not meant to be anything in the first place."

      Then it succeeded, marvelously. And in the process managed to make stars of a crappy standup comic and two boring actors. There are plenty of comedies that manage to be intelligent and funny, all the while having a point. One example that should be compared to Seinfeld is its erstwhile partner Mad About You. Seinfeld managed to be dumb, unfunny, and entirely pointless.

      "You state The Matrix as "brainless fun".
      This would mean that good movies come along only once in maybe 7-8 years."

      You did read the "fun" part of "brainless fun", didn't you? It's a stylish, mildly innovative, and well executed action movie. I think it pales in comparison to, say, Hard Boiled (or any other Woo/Yun-Fat collaboration), but it's pretty good.

      "Granted that the immersive intellectual jigsaw presented in the first 40 minutes could have been better utilized later in the movie, it does quite a good job."

      Immersive? Intellectual jigsaw (puzzle)? Episode One was more complicated. IMHO, of course.

      And why would you reply as an AC? And why even mention it if you decided against it?

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
    47. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by TGK · · Score: 1

      Hear Hear! The voice in my head has been screaming "I think therefore I am" since the begining of this thread.

      As usual, no mod points when I need em.....

      It frustrates me that not only this reviewer but apparently most of the /. croud are upset that Matrix II isn't presenting them with new and groundbreaking philosophical ideas. Most of us here have a hard time with the classic German philosophers, have never heard of the more prominant eastern ones, and still don't understand the agagory of the cave (all of which, by the way, come to light in The Matrix).

      99.99% of this audiance wouldn't know groundbreaking philosophy if it jumped up and bit them, myself included. I'm happy to see a movie at least incorporating some of the classic works of philosophy in an engaging manner.

      Most people watching this movie can't recognise philosophical content without a thick dusty textbook infront of them. In that light their views on it don't carry a lot of weight with me.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    48. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by jellybear · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's subjective. But who said adding the values was the right equation either? The parent said if the action was 10x better and the sfx were 10x better, then reloaded would be 100x the movie, despite the absence of plot. I was just using the same logic and throwing in philosophy.

    49. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      It is almost comical to me to hear you call the question of the nature of existence trivial.

    50. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      Woah! You are really going out on a limb. Mathematics is generated from a very small set of axioms, which are defined. We can be free to define them, because they are an abstract concept. Everything (validly) generated from those axioms is both testable and falsifiable.

    51. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by gosand · · Score: 1
      As Plato said in Phaedrus, "the writer cannot determine his audience". and I have a feeling that most people who enjoyed The Matrix won't be able to handle lofty philosophical concepts, much less a fiercely logical structured argument for the existence of God and reality, without constant diversions in the form of gun battles, sex scenes, and other forms of violent eye candy.

      Ahh, but is it truly violent if the people aren't real?

      Seriously, most people won't tap into the deeper philosophical meanings in the Matrix, but they might get an intro to something they probably never thought about. The people with no philosophical interest will see an action movie, and others might tap into the meaning behind the movie and go somewhere with it.

      I love philosophical discussions, even if they are based on non-philosophical things. If you want to, you can turn ANYTHING into a philosophical discussion. One of my friends can turn any discussion to something out of Lord of the Rings. I can do the same with the Simpsons. Sure, there is nothing new in this movie, but why do we need something new? All of the "old" stuff is still worth talking about.

      Homer: Hey, I've got a question for you. Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it.
      Ned: Well sure of course, he could, but then again... wow as melon scratchers go, that's a honey doodle.
      Homer: Now you know what I've been going through.

      Believe me, over a few beers, this could turn into quite the discussion with a few friends of mine. :-)

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    52. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Neck_of_the_Woods · · Score: 1


      I always was under the impressions that "Cod" or "Cods" was anouther name for my boys downstairs.

      IE, dude she tried to wing my cods, but only clipped the left one. Either way I was down for the count.

      > Hey man could you get your dog to stop licking his cods...?

      I don't think it means that same thing in Europe, but in the deep south you have to give up a little , if nothing else we have some great lingo.

      --
      Neck_of_the_Woods
      #/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
    53. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by grondu · · Score: 1

      I always was under the impressions that "Cod" or "Cods" was anouther name for my boys downstairs.

      I think it's a shortened version of codswallop, i.e., rubbish.

      --

      I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist

    54. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      What you believe to be philosophy is nothing more than jibberish..

      Ok, I have to disagree here, a short sample from a college level philosophy class...

      Teacher: For your final exam prove this chair does not exist!!

      Note: the only student in the class to get an "A" replied with the following-

      Student who got an "A": What chair?

    55. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by milo_Gwalthny · · Score: 1

      Or, if you're thinking of the Christian God, try Aquinas.

      --
      Milo
    56. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      different people want different gods.

      But, to be to the point here, if there is indeed "one" God, then does our opinion matter or change who or what he is?

      What you described is what is called "idolatry", worshiping a self made God...

      If I am in deep trouble and am about to die, I would have to consider myself insane to pray or ask for help from a wooden statue I've made or to call on an actor from a movie screen that I idolized...

      But yet if there is a real God, then calling on him for help is exactly what would do good and I would receive help...

      To sum up, calling on a self made God for help = 0% chance of getting help...

      Calling on a possibly real God (definitely real to many people, and if indeed real, our perceptions of his existance are pointless and our debates of his existance more pointless) then I have a very good chance of receiving help. (unquantifiable as it may be, but better than 0%)

    57. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      There was nothing at all 'deep' to it, unless your normal fare of this stuff consists of the questions Seinfeld asks during his stand-up routine at the end of his horrid show.

      If you consider Seinfeld horrid, I don't think your opinion on art and entertainment should be given much weight. You clearly have no taste.

      IMHO, of course.

      Best,
      -jimbo

    58. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Drakonian · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      Random is the New Order.
    59. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And proving that there can be no proof of a God that performs meaningful actions is infinitely more difficult than you claim. Especially when you do not define God.
      Not only is it difficult, it's impossible. There can be no logical proof of God's existence, and there can be no logical proof of God's non-existence. In addition, there can be no logical proof that there is no proof of God's existence. But there is a logical proof that there is no logical proof of God's existence.

      What I mean by "logical" proof is just that that can be derived from logic. God does not follow from logic itself. But as someone else pointed out, God might follow from something else, such as morality, as Kant thought.
    60. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 1
      Logical Positivists, with their verificationalist doctrine, deny metaphysics, but not all anti-realists are logical positivists.
      Fair enough, but the main point still remains. Denying that philosophy has any importance is itself an interesting and controversial philosophical doctrine.
    61. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by alienmole · · Score: 1
      Logic and a concept of God are not mutually exclusive things. Ask Einstein.

      I didn't say that. I said that Descartes' Meditations don't qualify as a logical argument - which is because they violate rules of logic that even Aristotle, Plato etc. would have recognized.

      So by your recogning. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Zeno, and the whole classical gang has nothing to do with "modern logic"?

      No. The issue is the content of the piece in question. However, if you were to raise Zeno's Paradox as an example of a logical argument against the possibility of movement, I would say that it is an incorrect one. However, it is much more subtly incorrect than Descartes.

      Just because modern scientific/relativistic/atheist views don't support God, doesn't mean that logic doesn't, or can't. Just look at Aquinas argument for the existance of god, and you see a perfect, beautiful logical constrution.

      No-one, including Aquinas, can argue logically for the existence of god - you need to have faith, to believe in things that cannot be proved. If you think otherwise, you don't understand logic, and you don't understand religion.

      Aquinas argument for the existance of god, and you see a perfect, beautiful logical constrution.

      Aquinas is another example of abuse of the term "logic". For example, although he makes many unsupported assumptions, he argues somewhat logically for the requirement for a first mover, and then jumps to "and this everyone understands to be God". That's not a logical argument, by any definition of the term. All he's doing is observing something that everyone believes. He doesn't connect the argument to the conclusion.

    62. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      Aquinas, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis., etc.

      Philosophers have been dealing with this issue in a logical manner for over a millenium. You may or may not accept their arguments, but they are as fiercely logicial as any philosophical work.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    63. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by monkeyindisguise · · Score: 1

      w00t! speak on it! I agree 100% with everything you just said ;) Action films are escapism not a replacement for Psych 101 marry me? :D j/k

    64. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by leodegan · · Score: 1
      No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not.
      If Neitzche is the only western philosopher you are familiar with, then you have a truly narrow view of western philosophy. Have you ever heard of idealism? Is that not part of western philosophy?

      Heck, one of the most well known pieces by Plato is the allegory of the cave, which clearly resembles Neo's experience and the question of what is real.

      Also, I miss your analogy of how "Morals and Tradition" relate to enslavement of the mind and how the matrix relates to enslavement of the mind. Please explain, because it is not clear to me. What in the world of the Matrix is analogous to the slave morality that Neitzche discusses?
    65. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by leodegan · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you. I'm not sure what you expect. Watching the Matrix may not be as deep as reading Aristotle, Descartes, or Wittgenstein, but it is a friken science fiction action thriller. The philosophical themes in the Matrix is what separates it from poor science fiction. Good science fiction is hard to come by these days, and the metaphysical themes that the Matrix directly addresses is what propels it above plain old action scifi's. Consider these topics:

      . Plato's Alegory of the Cave
      . Fate vs. Freewill
      . Is the human mind a computer
      . Is suffering connected to our concept of real

      I believe it is because of the W. brothers' appreciation of these topics that makes it an excellent movie.

      I am left to believe that you do not appreciate metaphysics, and you only consider ethics, politics and linguistics to be interesting philosophy.

    66. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by naasking · · Score: 1

      Here it is, Professor Hatcher's Proof Of The Logical Existence of God (or at least my transcript of it). Followups outline his assumptions and possible flaws. But overall, the most convincing argument yet.

    67. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by naasking · · Score: 1

      Not only is it difficult, it's impossible. There can be no logical proof of God's existence, and there can be no logical proof of God's non-existence. In addition, there can be no logical proof that there is no proof of God's existence.

      So you claim, yet I see no convincing argument.

      But there is a logical proof that there is no logical proof of God's existence.

      Where? I am genuinely interested.

      What I mean by "logical" proof is just that that can be derived from logic. God does not follow from logic itself.

      Professor Hatcher thinks he has found one.

    68. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Math is not a language, nor an alphabet. Also, math makes claims throughout itself.

      1+1=2
      There are an infinite number of primes.
      etc...

      These things are true because math is defined to be so.

    69. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by naasking · · Score: 1

      There are an infinite number of primes.

      This is an axiom, a base rule that defines the premises of the logical system. Every logical argument makes them. Everything other than axioms must be proven.

      There are an infinite number of primes.

      This was proven, not claimed.

    70. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by naasking · · Score: 1

      Let's try this again...

      1+1=2

      This is an axiom, a base rule that defines the premises of the logical system. Every logical argument makes them. Everything other than axioms must be proven.

      There are an infinite number of primes.

      This was proven, not claimed.

    71. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by evilpenguin · · Score: 1

      You know, I agree with you. The Matrix does have some interesting philisophical ideas in its mix. My problem is that I find one of its themes to be so utterly repugnant: An individual is not capable, and therefore not responsible, for his own survival and the survival of his community. Instead, one should wait for the arrival of a superman/messiah who is the only one capable of saving the community. Not only that, but that superman does not arrive at this capability through a hero's journey where he is challenged and improved, rather this ability is latent, nascent, and all that is required is that he become aware of it.

      The Matrix didn't invent this idea either, but it is one of the clearest examples of it.

      At best, this idea is lazy storytelling -- a deus ex machina plot resolution. At worst, this is an anti-humanist, elitist, fascist point of view that holds that if all men are created equal, some are more equal than others. (Note that the liberal democratic ideas in the American Declation of Independence isn't so pie-eyed as to say that "all men are equal," but rather that they are all "created equal.")

      I would contrast the story of Neo with the fictional story of Arthur, or the real story of Ghandi. Neo is no hero. Ghandi is a hero. Arthur is a hero who falls. He fails. Neo never risks failure. He either is "The One" or the story will simply end. Did you doubt that he was the one at any point? Was there any chance he would not be?

      How much more interesting would the story be if it had focused primarily on Morpheus, the character who is actually taking a risk by putting his faith in Neo, and then the sequel could have been about what happens when agent Smith takes Neo apart at the end of the movie because Morpheus made a mistake? What if it then became about Morpheus and company having to save THEMSELVES by their own resources because of their misplaced faith in a mystical savior?

      Chosen One plots make good religions, but they make generally poor stories. Even the gospels hold more dramatic interest (and I'm not talking about their truth or revelatory nature here -- just their story) since Jesus is both human and divine and he has doubts and struggles with this dual nature. He must sacrifice his human life to the higher demands of his divine life. Neo doesn't even have to do this. He simply is "The One."

      It's weak, I tells ya! Dramatically weak!

    72. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I was just using the same logic and throwing in philosophy.

      Not the same logic, skewed logic. You are assuming that the value of $philosophy is 0, when in fact, it may just be close to zero.

      I meant that as a joke & also sorta' kinda' maybe real.

    73. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 1
      "But there is a logical proof that there is no logical proof of God's existence."

      Where? I am genuinely interested.
      To say that God follows from logic means that the denial of God's existence is literally a contradiction. It seems implausible that the denial of God's existence can itself be a contradiction, but let's go a little further. Let's take some attribute of God that actually has an impact on our world, such as the parting of the Red Sea. To say that the denial of this miracle is literally a contradiction is to insult both religion and logic. We can repeat the procedure for pretty much any interesting thing that God does.

      Now, let's look at the link you provided. In fact, let's just assume that the conclusion has been adequately proved:
      Therefore, there exists a unique, non-causal or self-caused, universal cause G, which is the result of P1+P2+P3. Let's call this phenomenon God.
      Ok, let's call this thing "God". Does this "God" answer our prayers, love us, punish the wicked, or direct our morality? We can't say. A "unique, non-causal or self-caused, universal cause G" whatever that means is unlikely to do or be anything meaningful. Why can't it be the universe itself?

      In any case, I don't have time to go through the whole proof, but most logical proofs of "God" start from the possibility of God's existence and derive the necessity of God's existence. But the real controversy is the possibility of God's existence. Most people would grant that "God is possible". But if you say your notion of possibility means that possibility implies necessity for a necessary being such as God, then they will deny that God is possible, because what they meant by possible was different than what you meant. In any case, the possibility of God's existence is deniable, and thus does not follow from logic itself. For such "proofs" my original assertion remains.
    74. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Actually, based on knowing he exists, Descartes then goes on to prove the existence of God, and then of the universe

      While I consider Descartes to be quite an intelligent thinker, one of the problems is that he doesn't prove the existence of God. All he does is simply reaffirm to the believers that they are right. There are too many assumptions in his "proofs" to actually prove anything.

    75. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > "gnorance is bliss"

      That's Gnu/Gnorance to you, pal.

    76. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > [...] get over yourself!

      That has become my most used phrase on /..

    77. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If you consider Seinfeld horrid, I don't think your opinion on art and entertainment should be given much weight

      If you think Seinfeld was enlightening, then you need serious help. If you think it was art, then you need a good whack upside the head.

      Just because someone likes or dislikes something you (dis)like doesn't add or remove any weight to their opinion. It just makes it different. Guess what (say it together, now) "We are all different."

      > You clearly have no taste.

      If you think that Seinfeld is quality programming, you have no taste. You like being generalized?

    78. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Nietsche, Descartes, William James, Plato, Aristotle, and some others in a more minor way.

    79. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by machinegestalt · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that you read Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. Specifically the section on the concept of panopticism. It takes the concept of irrational power structures a step beyond Nietzsche. The concepts of surveillance, self-moderation, censure and how they relate together in a power system to make it self perpetuating are quite clearly laid out there. It's a fairly dense work but very worthwhile if you havn't read it yet.

      Machinegestalt

    80. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      No, I do believe he said that if it had 10x better sfx/action, then it would be a 10x better movie.

      --
      OMG! Wau!
    81. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Cplus · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could say that...for sufficiently loose definitions of prove.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    82. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by naasking · · Score: 1
      To say that God follows from logic means that the denial of God's existence is literally a contradiction.

      Of course. Given a set of base facts which we know to be true (axioms), we can arrive at further conclusions through a systematic process of reasoning. This is logic. If the truths which form our premises imply a God (for some definition of God), then logic will prove that God's existence. A particular logical system's axioms need not be true or valid in our world, but they must be if we hope to accurately model our existence. This is the truly difficult part, since what facts can we truly be certain of?

      We can't say. A "unique, non-causal or self-caused, universal cause G" whatever that means is unlikely to do or be anything meaningful.

      Indeed, this corresponds with the notion of "God the Creator" but implies no further divine intervention. According to the proof this phenomenon called God is still in existence, since it is self-caused it does not go away with the end of the universe; furthermore it preceded existence and caused the universe. According to the proof, it's sole purpose is to cause the universe and itself.

      Why can't it be the universe itself?

      That is answered in the proof: "Can V->V?"

      In any case, I don't have time to go through the whole proof, but most logical proofs of "God" start from the possibility of God's existence and derive the necessity of God's existence.

      The conclusion derives directly from principles 1 through 3 (limitation principle, potency principle, principle of sufficient reason). There are no assumptions beyond this and the principles themselves are founded on a layman's empirical observation of our world (which is the proof's greatest weakness).

      In any case, the possibility of God's existence is deniable, and thus does not follow from logic itself.

      The existence of God is deniable for various reasons:
      1. the definition of God is arbitrary
      2. the premises of the logical system are arbitrary and may not have direct a correlation with reality

      As the link I provided demonstrates, one can construct a logical system which proves the existence of a particular definition of God, yet one must further demonstrate that the premises have also been verified. In the above proof, the premises seem quite reasonable to one not acquainted with physics, but may not be necessarily true.

      The facts and knowledge which form our premises are constantly being revised. Even if we do arrive at a complete description of existence (ie. one that explains everything we observe) one can question whether our "models" are the actual mechanism behind existence or whether they just happen to merely coincide with observations thus far (Aristotle vs Plato all over again).
    83. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      I see. So the Nietzsche clown is a genius and the 2500-year old religion is nothing more than granola-types answering dumb questions? How can you put so much effort into one philosopher (and one book) yet not get the overriding thesis of that same philosopher/book?
      Because that's probably all he's read.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    84. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by armb · · Score: 1

      > If the Matrix takes anything from philosophy, it's the Cartesian method - how do you know that what you perceive is real, and not just put there to trick you? Descarte's answer was that you can't, and the only thing you can ever know for sure is that you, the individual doing the questioning, exists.

      No, Descartes' answer was that you can be sure that you exist and think, and that you can use that as a _starting_ point to deduce other things.
      In particular, he went on to deduce the existence of God. You might not agree with his arguments for that, but it is part of his answer.

      http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Philosop hy /Philosophers/Descartes,_Ren%C3%A9/?tc=1

      --
      rant
    85. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by cm4rx · · Score: 1

      i think he is referring to how the people on the matrix live a fake world made by an elite who profits from it. the fake world they create allows them to exploit people without them noticing, without them questioning it. i guess that relates to nietszche when he talks about the herrens moral and how when they decide whats right and wrong they are doing the same thing: exploiting people without them "realizing" that it is "wrong" - because who defined whats wrong in the first place ?

      i really like nietzsches idea of how moral isnt something metaphysical written forever on stone like the 10 commandments or something, but really a creation of a material (meaning non-metaphysical) man according to its material needs. makes a lot of sense

      --

      They made a wasteland and called it peace.
      Tacitus, Roman historian. - 1st century AD
  7. Other reviews available by joshua404 · · Score: 1
    Ron Epstein and Steve Simon of Hometheaterforum.com have also posted similar reviews.

    Personally, I expected this kind of response. The Matrix was fluke in that it came out of nowhere and surprised nearly everyone. The hype surrounding the sequels set the bar impossibly high. Especially when the W brothers essentially wrote themselves into a corner with the first movie. And that's not a bad thing, it's a great story. They should have simply recognized that going for more would pollute the waters. I think they would have been better off sticking to things in an "expanded universe" such as demonstrated by the Animatrix. Then they would have been freer to explore without dilluting the impact and mystique of the first him. But to each their own, I certainly plan on seeing Reloaded and Revolutions. But I have set the bar low in terms of my expectations for the same kind of experience I got from The Matrix.

  8. Matrix Philosophy by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Two catch-phrases stuck with me from the movie. The first one was, "There is no spoon," because it was quoted here on /., and on second thought it was kind of amusing.

    But the one that really stuck was, "Guns, lots of guns." The lobby scene was one of the most poetic sequences of violent overkill I've ever seen, right up there with the Diva/Lulu music/fight scene near the end of Fifth Element.

    I am purposely avoiding reviews until I see the movie, so I haven't read the link, and skipped the earlier quote. But the action is OK if it has the poetry in motion of the first one. Hopefully they've broken some new ground, if they want my money on the third movie before it gets to second-run cheap seats.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Matrix Philosophy by pi_rules · · Score: 1
      But the one that really stuck was, "Guns, lots of guns." The lobby scene was one of the most poetic sequences of violent overkill I've ever seen

      Violent overkill? Never met an NRA member, eh?

      Excuse me while I fondle my AR-15.
    2. Re:Matrix Philosophy by xmedar · · Score: 1

      I disagree, I thought the best line was "It doesnt mean anything", for a movie so packed to the gills with meaning that has got to be the best line in a movie, ever.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    3. Re:Matrix Philosophy by Groganz · · Score: 1

      The other one that really stuck with me is: Smith: "You're empty" Neo: "So are you" Because it raises the question what am I and what am I filled with. Besides of course, chemically, us being mostly space.

    4. Re:Matrix Philosophy by dpilot · · Score: 1

      On Star Trek once some aliens referred to us humans as, "ugly bags of mostly water."

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Matrix Philosophy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      But the one that really stuck was, "Guns, lots of guns." The lobby scene was one of the most poetic sequences of violent overkill I've ever seen, right up there with the Diva/Lulu music/fight scene near the end of Fifth Element.

      Good picks. I'd add the Bloodbath/Daywalker scene from Blade for the ultimate home theater trifecta.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Matrix Philosophy by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Never saw Blade. Maybe I should, sometime after the OT push at work ends and I can get a life, again.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:Matrix Philosophy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, you'll be happy. The Matrix learned quite a bit from Blade. Don't bother with Blade 2 though, it has severe sequelitis.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. I'm sorry to say it... by Wind_Walker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Matrix was really not a philosophical movie. It was an action movie that throws in a few pseudo-philosophical concepts without actually delving into the subject fully. I don't fault the creators for this, but I'm still mad at people who are upset by this "divergence" from the original.

    The first time I watched The Matrix I was impressed by the philosopical aspect of it, and wowed by the action. The second time I saw how thin the plot was and how shallow the characters were, but was still impressed by the action. The third time I used my Chapter button on the DVD to skip ahead to the action, because I grew tired of the one-line philosophy.

    "Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real?" Please. Read fscking Decartes, he does a much better analysis of reality than Morpheus ever could. "Would you still have broken the vase if I hadn't said anything?" Christ, get that woman some Herodotus or St. Augustine. "Fate is not without a certain sense of irony." Give me a gun. I can't take it anymore.

    It's pseudo-philosophy, just like Contact is pseudo-scientific. Fine for the mainstream audience, but if you've studied the subject they're touching on it's just plain insulting. So I'm glad to see that they've stopped trying to be philosophical and just stuck with what really made The Matrix successful - mind-blowing action.

    1. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      I don't mind that the plot is laden with pseudo-philosophy. It certainly makes things much more interesting than your average action movie. But it is annoying when people try to derive any depth from The Matrix. What's better would be to read Descartes, and then use the ideas you learned from him to analyze The Matrix. There's plenty going on in The Matrix that you can analyze from a philosophical perspective, but you have to get that philosophy from an outside source--you can't find it in the movie itself.

    2. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      Not to try to make up any parallel between Descartes and The Matrix, it does seem that the only one who can fully control the dream that is The Matrix is The One, a.k.a. God. Of course there's no circular reasoning going on in The Matrix as there's no real reasoning to begin with. They just take a little from here, a little from there, and the end result looks cool.

    3. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by MourningBlade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The message must be appropriate to the medium.

      Movies affect the senses in order to affect the mind. Books turn that around.

      Therefore, for a movie to be a "philosophical" movie, it is more important that it show the results of its motivation in a sensual manner (sensuous is acceptable as well, depending on your motivation ;-) and allow the audience to create its own framework for analysis than to spell it out for them.

      The point of the questioning in The Matrix was to provide an easily-graspable starting point for anyone to start thinking about what he had seen and felt from the movie. The action sequences were there --- at least in part --- for us to entertain ourselves with the construct so created.

      Fiction lies within the realm of "what if." It is the responsibility of the fiction writer to produce an entertaining read for his audience (even if that audience is just himself). We ask a bit more of science fiction, in that the what if must also consider philosophical ramifications, but we often balk if said philosophy bits are presented in the raw and not worked into the story.

      The point is that exposition and essay such as Descart and Herodotus wrote is completely inappropriate to a science fiction movie, and more suited to the medium in which they wrote. Otherwise they would have been writing plays or poems and songs such as their artistic bretheren were doing.

      The dialogues of Plato also are ill-suited to the movie medium. The closest good (by which I mean literary or otherwise of artistic merit) movie to the dialogues would be Waking Life --- and even that is half-baked if considered as a philosophical essay.

      The mistake is not in the creation, it is in the analysis of the critic: we do not analyse poems as we do philosophical journal articles, so why insist that movies serve as such?

      Another thing that bugs me about the above post: the author is only considering what is actually said in the movie. In a visual and auditory medium, that is insipid: would Apocalypse Now play so well as a radio show?

      Also, it is considered of higher intellectual integrity to kindly consider a piece's arguments and fill them out as you would if you were the person proposing them in opposition to your own arguments. Knocking a work because it does not address what you are arguing is of very low class. Perhaps you should read Aquinas, or talk to any Ancient Philosophy 101 teacher.

      The point of philosophy is not to bash another's views, but to discover Truth and the constructs towards Truth. That's why we call it philosophy.

      All the same, I thank you for your post because it was one of the first in its vein cogent enough to respond to.

      PS: Yes, I feel the same way towards people who consider The Matrix to be the be-all-end-all of solipsistic philosophy. Then again, it's not the worst introduction to it, and I've been shocked by how few people are familiar with solipsistic arguments.

    4. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Come on... The very concept of the Matrix was philosophical.

      Besides, you left out the best part. My favorite part was Agent Smith's comparison of Humans to other creatures.

      Saying tha Matrix would be better without the philosophy is like saying any action movie would be better without the story. Just because you didn't find it particularly good after seeing it several times doesn't mean it would be better without it.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by sgtsanity · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, I'd like to see you sum up complex philosophies in a two-hour movie, complete with action, plot, and Neo's lengthy dialogue. The Matrix isn't an end-all in philosophy. It's simply a springboard for interesting philosophy discussion. For example, what would you choose, meeting your destiny by sucumbing to fate and gaining the freedom of superpowers, or rejecting that destiny, retaining free will, but living a mundane existence? And there's quite a multitude of views on whether Cypher's really right or not. It's a supplement, not a replacement.

    6. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      It's pseudo-philosophy, just like Contact is pseudo-scientific.

      To be fair to Carl Sagan, the book version of Contact (preceding the movie by many years) was IMHO much superior to the movie. In a book, one has the time and space to much more thoroughly explore both science and philosphy--which Sagan did.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    7. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by sparkz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you got all the philosophical stuff out of The Matrix in the first viewing, you obviously know your Judeo-Christian history and Buddhist philosophy intimately. I'd guess it'd put you in the top 2-5% of such knowledge.

      Hang on though, such experts would either ignore it as not their problem, or investigate it further as such.
      I suspect you're more the "Philosophy 101" type who says "Trinity - I've heard that word; Zion - I've heard that word, too" without any actual understanding.

      The Matrix is a strange, and inconsistent film (not least - why, in a simulated world, do simulated telephones have such significance?!) but to dismiss the entire thing in a single viewing is a sign either of an incredible life experience, or of an incredible ignorance.

      It's only a film, that is true, but there is more to it than Independance Day, which, to be fair, a Media Studies student could hopefully be able to get /something/ out of after a 3rd viewing.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    8. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by crashnbur · · Score: 1
      I don't mean to question your pseudo-philosophical opinion, but what movie did you see? Just because the dialog isn't exactly as Decartes or Spinoza or, hell, Ayn Rand would have written it doesn't make the movie any less philosophical.

      For that matter, how can anyone justify the argument that anything isn't philosophical? The entire movie is an episode in cultural materialism and skepticism. Sure, it doesn't belong next to anything Aristotle or Nietzsche wrote, but then again, nothing they ever wrote belongs next to the Wachowskis' masterpiece film. The movie is laced with philosophical dialog.

      The fact that at least half a dozen books have been written on nothing but the philosophy of The Matrix justifies the claim that, no matter how bad some of us think the philosophical quality of the movie is, the movie is indeed philosophical. I mean, com'on, it raises philosophical questions...

    9. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      It's pseudo-philosophy [...]
      Why is it philisophical the first time someone hears it or thinks it, but "pseudo-philosophy" once someone has become accustomed to those ideas?

      I don't get it, really. Since when was thinking allowed to be cheapened by experience?
      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    10. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by vespazzari · · Score: 1

      honestly, why would i want to waste my time reading Descartes? Sure he brings up points, and maybe he was the first to do it, but does that really matter? does he actually answer anything? (with any sort physical application, i actually, really dont know) Or are you just some sort of elitist that has some notion that either a. Everyone gives a rats ass about philosophy (and cares to spend a sufficient amount of time reading about it) or b. has nothing else better to do

      dont get me wrong, I am not saying that philosophy is a waste of time. I myself cannot justify spending much time or effort in such an intangable area.

      --
      "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
    11. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I appreciate your comments, especially:

      "The point of the questioning in The Matrix was to provide an easily-graspable starting point for anyone to start thinking about what he had seen and felt from the movie. The action sequences were there --- at least in part --- for us to entertain ourselves with the construct so created."

      It's getting a little tiresome reading people knocking the Matrix for its lack of philosophy, despite its pretensions. Like this is somehow a difficult target, and you're a genius for pointing this out to the less well read among us. These budding directors and critics would only be satisfied with a film version of The Republic; "Oh my god, they cut out so much dialogue", "I can't believe they didn't release it in the original Greek, with subtitles. . ."

      Maybe the first couple people who introduced this line of thought, like FOUR YEARS AGO should be commended for their clairity of vision, but the rest of you are just jumping on the bandwagon to look superior in decrying a massively popular movie. It's okay, I've been in your shoes before. Nothing is ever good enough, intelligent enough, well crafted enough, especially if lots of people actually enjoyed it. Troglodytes, all of 'em!

      How many people in the viewing audience do you think have read any great work of western philosophy, let alone understood it? The underpinings to the Matrix are better thought out then any action movie of the last couple decades (if I'm wrong here, I'm eager to be proven wrong. Name some movies [in any genre] that introduce more philosophical discussion than the Matrix has). I did notice that someone out there mentioned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, that's one of my favorite films. Go rent it. No, I don't think it's available on DVD. Nevermind.

      Who was it that said "if you want to send a message, use a telegram." It's a film. A visual medium. It introduced some philosophical ideas to an audience that has never considered them before. They should be commended for releasing something more than your standard action/shooting movie. Let it be, and enjoy it for what it is.

      I realize no one will read this (posting anonynously to a post buried deep in the article, but it's been cathartic. When the next film has made its first 200 million, I'll be eager to hear your original thoughts on Keanu Reaves' acting ability. Peace out.

    12. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by epiphani · · Score: 1

      OT, but...

      It's pseudo-philosophy, just like Contact is pseudo-scientific. Fine for the mainstream audience, but if you've studied the subject they're touching on it's just plain insulting.

      Contact is NOT pseudo-scientific. Read the book. The movie does not contridict the book especially in scientific terms - the movie leaves things out. Need I remind you that Carl Sagan wrote the book, the only fiction he ever wrote?

      Contact is, in my opinion, probably the most likely method of contact with other intelligent life that has been posed.

      --
      .
    13. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by master_p · · Score: 1

      but to discover Truth

      How can you discover Truth ? the moment you find Truth, you can find yourself in another simulated environment. And then you find another Truth, another simulation and so on.

      It's the same with God. Who created God ? And who created the environment that God operates into ? Another God ? And who created that another God ?.

      You see, there is no point in searching for any Truth. Actually, there is no Truth. There are numerous small "truths" in our everyday life, but that are rather experiences than truths.

      In short, we are living in a bubble, and that bubble can not be burst, no matter what. The Matrix says that Neo has burst that bubble. Well, I've got some news for him: the Matrix's real world maybe a simulation of a multidimensional entity.

      Check out the simulation argument.

    14. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Check out the simulation argument.

      I really enjoyed the simulation argument. It was interesting, at the least, and unafraid to be unconventional.

      However, the previous portion of your post was touching upon epistomology, and I'd like to try to explain a little bit about what I meant by "Truth."

      It used to be hoped that we could all have Truth - our knowledge would be justified knowledge, and furthermore it would be true. That was around the middle ages, and it was stuck there for a while.

      Then people starting thinking "well, these problems related to knowing that our knowledge is true are extremely hard to deal with, so what if we settled for having justified knowledge?"

      And so entered in Empiricism, which offered a construct whereby we could have totally justified knowledge.

      Well, not quite - if you buy the arguments of the Naturalists (which I do, but won't get into here).

      The Naturalists say that knowledge is a pretty lofty goal. Why don't we settle for belief? I mean, not everyone can prove everything he believes, so therefore not all of the things floating in his head are knowledge, and it seems like we do a lot more work in belief than knowledge anyways, so why not have a theory of beliefs?

      So, according to the Naturalists, we have a web of dependent beliefs. The closer something is to the center, the more it depends upon and the more it would rock the boat for it to be wrong. This would cover such things as "I am me," and "water is wet." On the outside it matters little whether something is true or not, and things often do flicker back and forth "that man approaching me is the man I saw several months ago and I can't remember his name," or, a bit further in but still tenuous "I think it's Thursday."

      But all of these beliefs can be wrong.

      So Naturalism has pretty much no support at all for Truth in the classical sense. So what do I mean, if I'm a Naturalist?

      Well, the goal for a Naturalist is to keep his web of beliefs consistent with his experience. Part of that is ensuring that he does not have serious defects in his deductions, and one of the best ways to do that is to talk to other people.

      Truth is that goal (reachable? I don't know) of having none of your beliefs conflict with each other, or with what you experience.

      I'm settling for Lesser Truth, where all of your central beliefs do not contradict and seem to be consistent with reality.

      So, what does this all matter if we are "living in a bubble" or in a simulation?

      Let's say that we are living in a bubble that cannot be burst, or a very, very good simulation. The rational person, then, would still believe what his experience shows him and would attempt to believe along the lines of experience until the experience contradicted itself.

      So, if the experience ever contradicts itself, then you're opened up to believing that there is perhaps an outer reality. Until then it's okay to conjecture about it, and it's even okay to put it in your web of beliefs --- provided you remember that it's unjustified.

      The worth of arguing about things is that, done constructively, it produces a better understanding of the world in which we live: which is valuable even if we are living in a bubble. Consider a player of a game (a purely virtual device). Is it not valuable for him to understand the virtual world he is in?

      Anyways, that's some epistomological background for an understanding of modern Truth as I was using the term. Maybe you'll find it useful.

      The other things you mentioned have some other sources you might want to look into for a good discussion of.

      • Solipsism: a good discussion is in the book 10 Philosophical Mistakes by Adler. It's a fun read, if you're into this kind of thing. He believes he has a total disproof of solipsism in its modern form (or at least showing that it's very misguided). Not sure I agree with it, but it is interesting and very per
    15. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Hey, I read it. ;-)

      Right on with R&GaD. Kick ass play and film.

      A similar coverage of this topic is done in The Truman Show, also a fun movie.

      I'm having trouble being sure about it, but I think Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa might have had more philosophy. It had a deep questioning of the role one plays in society, and the nature of good and evil. Further, it didn't pound you over the head with it. Huzzah!

  10. Several reviews have been posted on AICN by evac · · Score: 1

    Harry Knowles' site has a bunch of reviews here, here, here, and the funniest one here.

  11. What did you expect? by moogla · · Score: 1

    It's going to need to make money. It can't get all philosophical without hurting too many people's feelings. OTH Americans like violence (especially when its inflicted on something that doesn't look like us).

    Hell, it was daring of them to make the people into food. The plugs on the guys heads/hands in the first movie made my dad so nauseous he left the theatre.

    Hungry for $4.00 popcorn? I can think of something nice to gaze at while you munch. Just get out there already, I'd feel sorry for Reeves if you didn't.
    I mean, he likes pot! That's cool -- big ups to my man!

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
  12. right by mojowantshappy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can hardly say that the first movie had a stunning, subtle philosophical theme. Our perception of reality is false, instead we are a battery for robot overlords. Very subtle.

    --

    This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    1. Re:right by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Our perception of reality is false, instead we are a battery for robot overlords.

      Ok, we are not really batteries for robot overlords, the subtlety comes in in how that relates to actual concepts in philosophy.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:right by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      As subtle as leatherclad chicks with guns can be, anyway.

  13. Time review... SPOILER!!!! by Shant3030 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Time magazine put a review on their website, that supposedly spoils the ending.

    DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IF YOU DO WANT THE ENDING SPOILED

    Matrix spoiler

    --
    100% Insightful
  14. 640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by sandbagger · · Score: 2, Informative

    The first film I saw drunk and was still able to shoot holes in the "plot".

    Why use humans at all? If all you need is a powersource, stick in sheep? Less troublesome by half.

    The caloric efficiency of using bodies as massive networked energy sources is a concept I don't buy. Cripes. Burning wood has to be more efficient.

    Of course, if you choose that route then you don't have a story, my point exactly.

    Moreover, who cares what people in the matrix think? If they revolt, so what? If I want a how do you perceive reality story, I'll take "Rosencratnz and Gildenstern are Dead" any day.

    Lastly, this is a nitpick I know, but bullets travel at well over the speed of sound. I don't care how fast you pull the trigger, with the action of a semi-automatic, the bullets will likely be 100 feet apart between shots.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by the_consumer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, none of those examples are "plot holes", which generally means an error in continuity or logic in the story. It did have a couple, but on the whole, for being as convoluted as it was, it was pretty internally consistent.

      Why use humans at all? If all you need is a powersource, stick in sheep? Less troublesome by half

      a) There're no sheep left after the war between humans and machines, presumably;
      and 2) Your brain produces enough electricity to power a microwave. I'm not sure how other mammals compare in this regard, but I doubt they fare much better.

      The caloric efficiency of using bodies as massive networked energy sources is a concept I don't buy. Cripes. Burning wood has to be more efficient.

      Yeah, the efficiency thing bugged me too. You can't just keep feeding dead people to new people without losing at least the body heat of the living in the process. Perhaps there's another unexplained food source, maybe algae or something. As for trees, the sky has been 'burnt', so no solar energy gets through (which would've been the optimal solution anyway, at least until the machines develop some other source of energy based of fusion or something).

      Moreover, who cares what people in the matrix think? If they revolt, so what?

      Actually, I think the preceding two points you made answer this one nicely, if we consider the Matrix a stop-gap measure used by the machines to perpetuate themselves until such a time as they no longer need humans. They may even be using human scientists within the Matrix to provide solutions to problems which they, as machines, haven't the creative insight to solve for themselves. Approached from this point of view, the eventual extermination of the human race by the machines becomes an inevitablility if the humans to not wake up and overthrow them.

      Lastly, this is a nitpick I know, but bullets travel at well over the speed of sound. I don't care how fast you pull the trigger, with the action of a semi-automatic, the bullets will likely be 100 feet apart between shots.

      That's true if you or I are firing the gun. If an Agent inside the Matrix is firing the gun, however, the results may be somewhat different.

      Of course, you still have to jump through a lot of suspension-of-disbelief hoops to buy the premise of the movie, so if you don't appreciate crazy scifi kung-fu stoner philosophy flicks with Carrie-Anne Moss in skin-tight leather outfits, you're more than welcome to spend your movie dollar seeing The Lizzie McGuire Movie

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    2. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by ShadowDrake · · Score: 2, Informative

      >2) Your brain produces enough electricity to power a microwave.

      Wow. I was under the impression that a typical microwave (the one they design the frozen dinner for) required 700 watts or so. The one on my kitchen counter uses 1100 IIRC. Let's imagine the heat output of four halogen bulbs (or 15 or so Palominos at 1667MHz) in a space smaller than a two-litre soda bottle.

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
    3. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      Actually, I heard that on the radio (NPR), so I just googled it and came up with 10 watts. I'll take neither of these answers as definitive ;)

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    4. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your own justification for humans as power sources is itself full of holes. The human body will always consume more energy than it produces; humans are losers in terms of energy production, and highly inefficient losers at that.

      There are at least a dozen different power sources I could name that would've made more sense than what was described in the move. It would've been much more logical to assume that the Matrix was, in fact, an extension of the current internet - one that gained a life of its own, but in Futureland couldn't exist without the continued processor power of 6 billion human brains, connected. Now *this* I could've bought, even if it strained my credulity more than I normally allow.

      Use this and you have a definite reason why the Matrix needs humans and can't give them up. Without all those human brains for processing power it becomes lobotomized and dies.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    5. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by markx16 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's true if you or I are firing the gun. If an Agent inside the Matrix is firing the gun, however, the results may be somewhat different.

      No, the agents can't change how machines work. If you remember the Metal Storm(lots of bullets in a tube machine gun) and from that discussion, remember that even at the maximum cyclical rate of an automatic machine gun, bullets are separated by hundreds of feet. That's because there's quite a bit to be done to extract the cartridge, eject it, and get a new cartridge in position, and usually you're cycling a pretty massive piece of metal, which has to accelerate and decelerate.

      Pushing the trigger faster and faster on a semi-auto (which is what their Desert Eagles are) won't do a damned thing if the slide's still open and there isn't a bullet in the chamber.

      That's not true, however, of revolvers - which cycle as fast as you can cycle the cylinder. So they'd be able to shoot it much faster than with a semi-auto - up to the point that it starts and stops so fast the catch breaks. They'd be much better off with the new S&W .50cal revolver than their Desert Ealges. Humans can do it, too. The fastest trick-shooters in the world do all their stuff with revolvers becasue semi-auto's are too slow for them. Something like 6 shots in half a second or something. Real freaky.

    6. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      Yeah, the efficiency thing bugged me too. You can't just keep feeding dead people to new people without losing at least the body heat of the living in the process. Perhaps there's another unexplained food source, maybe algae or something. As for trees, the sky has been 'burnt', so no solar energy gets through (which would've been the optimal solution anyway, at least until the machines develop some other source of energy based of fusion or something)


      Remember when Neo is being told about the matrix and we see all the babies and humans hooked up? There is a scense where we see an aphid like creature crawl off one of the humans. Perhaps that is where the extra food is coming from.

    7. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1
      Lastly, this is a nitpick I know, but bullets travel at well over the speed of sound. I don't care how fast you pull the trigger, with the action of a semi-automatic, the bullets will likely be 100 feet apart between shots.

      How is this a problem? Obviously the bullets are being slowed down. The first one may be traveling at the speed of sound when it first leaves the gun but it is suddenly going a lot slower, allowing the rest to catch up. Neo didn't just dodge the bullets, he slowed them, both times he was being shot at. The first time he lost his concentration and got hit by one that he didn't slow down.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    8. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      Why use humans at all? If all you need is a powersource, stick in sheep? Less troublesome by half.
      Animatrix Second Renaissance parts 1 and 2 explain this. It's not just for efficiency, which probably doesn't make sense. It's for preservation of intelligence. To the machine, intelligence is holy.
    9. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by sehryan · · Score: 1

      a) There're no sheep left after the war between humans and machines, presumably;

      Not to be too terribly anal, but it doesn't matter that there are no sheep left after the war. The machines aren't taking current humans and putting them in power packs, they are growing them from scratch. Assumably, they could grow sheep, goats, Anna Nicole Smith...just about any mindless animal and not have to worry about control. It would seem that there is another reason why the have to use humans, and I am pretty sure I have it figured out...

      BECAUSE IF THEY USED ANYTHING ELSE, NO ONE WOULD CARE, AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A MOVIE.

      Have a nice day!

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    10. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      Actually, I didn't have a justification for humans being used as a power source, just an explanaiton why sheep and trees are not. Then again, I coulda been talking outta my ass. Who cares? It's a fucking kung-fu movie. Suspend some disbelief, eat some popcorn, and allow your jaw to drop periodically. Or perhaps we should all argue about the feasibility of the Return of the King when that comes out, too ;)

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    11. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by leifm · · Score: 1

      I don't get why the machines don't just make everyone in the Matrix rich, then why the hell would they want to rebel anyway? It'd be rich in virtual world vs. fighting machines in some crappy world. How many people are gonna choose fighting?

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    12. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      but in Futureland couldn't exist without the continued processor power of 6 billion human brains, connected. Now *this* I could've bought, even if it strained my credulity more than I normally allow.

      I suspect they were well aware of this, but Morpheus holding up a Pentium probably didn't have quite the same dramatic flourish as him holding up a Duracell, and Trinity calling Neo "coppertop".

    13. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by Ramshackle · · Score: 1
      Your brain produces enough electricity to power a microwave. I'm not sure how other mammals compare in this regard, but I doubt they fare much better.


      If this were true, I'd be having kids just to use them as batteries.

    14. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by hesiod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > It'd be rich in virtual world vs. fighting machines in some crappy world

      Remember that, in the story, that wasn't the first Matrix -- the one where people were all happy failed.

    15. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by leifm · · Score: 1

      Oh, well I stand corrected. I only saw the first one once, and I don't remember much about it.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
  15. The latest Wired magazine by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Informative
    The latest Wired magazine (May 2003, "Take the Red Pill") has an in-depth interview with the lead special effects guru of The Matrix, John Gaeta. According to him (and he has in-depth explinations and narratives) "Reloaded" innovates a ton - the battle between Neo and Agent Smith uses technology that is completely new, for example.

    Besides, it has some great pics of Jada Pinket-Smith in it. Yeeeeaaaaa baby.

  16. How to use the premise by Kappelmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'd also be disappointed in an all-out action sequel, because of the philosophical underpinnings of the original.

    I'm writing a movie about the psychology of VR worlds (applied to MMORPGs) and thought it would be a neat exercise to make a list of the ways the Matrix premise could been pushed. These are straight from my notes:
    • An RL (real life) character takes on several MV (metaverse) characters, or at least, someone who doesn't look exactly the same.
    • RL characters continue to kill with impunity in the MV, but discuss the ethics -- isn't it as bad as killing an RL person, since it essentially is? (Why is Neo less than a serial murderer for what he did in the lobby, since those policemen thought they were pretty real?)
    • Neo alters MV world history by materializing at key places at key times, as opposed to just hanging around downtown.
    • The Matrix history is recorded and characters use the records to uncover key revelations about the world and each other. (This world would be very different if there were absolute records of every physical event.)
    • A futher exploration of the mind/body problem. This movie "enforces" the notion that all physicality is part of the mind -- they are not parallel or intertwined. Neo's ability to reform the Matrix is a great device for this -- "there is no spoon" indeed. But is the spoon, then, bent just for him, or for everyone? How might the computer resolve divergent internalizations, interpretations, and mental images? Surely there is a large piece of perception that lies well outside the computer's reach of sensory input -- can't people get out of sync?

    But then again... it's hard to sell tickets when you make movies out of musings like those.
    1. Re:How to use the premise by lkaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A futher exploration of the mind/body problem. This movie "enforces" the notion that all physicality is part of the mind -- they are not parallel or intertwined. Neo's ability to reform the Matrix is a great device for this -- "there is no spoon" indeed. But is the spoon, then, bent just for him, or for everyone? How might the computer resolve divergent internalizations, interpretations, and mental images? Surely there is a large piece of perception that lies well outside the computer's reach of sensory input -- can't people get out of sync?

      This is an interesting point but the problem can be avoided if one separates the observation of an individual and the results of his observation. The individuals all observe the same reality and each of their individual actions affect that one reality.

      Syncronizing multiple realities just seems like a total waste of resources (what a waste of memory).

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
    2. Re:How to use the premise by rpillala · · Score: 1
      RL characters continue to kill with impunity in the MV, but discuss the ethics -- isn't it as bad as killing an RL person, since it essentially is? (Why is Neo less than a serial murderer for what he did in the lobby, since those policemen thought they were pretty real?)

      I've been wondering this same thing. The way the first movie explains it (if I remember right) is that even though those people don't know they're being controlled by a system, they are still the enemy. So willing or not, they deserve whatever they get for being part of the system. That pretty much ruined the movie for me because it's so flimsy. None of those policemen deserved to die (and somewhere, each of their bodies did actually die, right?), it was just an excuse for lots of gunfire and running around.

      If you ask me.

      Ravi

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    3. Re:How to use the premise by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

      It's not so hard to synchronize realities - it depends on what models you are using.

      If, say, everything is modelled in 3D vertices then you could have one model of reality but the models get different skins for each viewer (people in suits always use the "monkey" skin for you but the "FBI" skin for me, but "techies" look the same to both of us).

      This 'skinning' varies on all levels in all senses. Always thought that would be the best way to create a MMOG - let everyone play the game they want to - I think only the real role-players' chatter would give a hint that someone is seeing a hi-tech world vs. an ancient fantasy world (and that could be mostly alieviated with certain storylines).

      In The Matrix perhaps (in a different version of the story) the machines aren't giving inputs into all nerves of each human but are instead using some lighter, less intrusive stimulation (less work) to influence the humans' perceptions which then do most of the interpretation - maybe it's just a light current being put in but one human registers it as a Mideivil overlord and another as a US Government official...

      In the more philosophical sense, what interests me is just *which* models and at *what level* we all are sharing in this perceived life.

      Ideas?

      8-PP

  17. Whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...of Karma.

  18. My friends liked it by sammaytg1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My firends are all basically warez pirates in training so they managed to snag a copy of the preelase and have already seen it. They all liked it and said it was as good as the first one.

    --
    procrastination is a way of life aka i'll think up a sig later
  19. Unreserved judgements by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Its supposed to make money, not innovate all over again.

    Ah, a realist! *swat* *swat* *stomp* *stomp*

    Yeah, this is why every Star Wars film since Episode IV: ANH has been, for me, an unfulfilled wish to achieve the same jawdropping awe. Sequels can be good, but there's the rate of declining return, as it's all become familiar and harder to impress with.

    I'll hold judgement until the closing credits myself.

    I've pretty much made up my mind from the trailers, it's not at the top of my list, and I may skip it in favor of something which isn't a sequel. If it featured Jay and Silent Bob, however...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  20. Strange... by 11223 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Now, this flatly contradicts what this week's Time Magazine claimed - namely, that the first hour of the new movie was all plot and little action, and only in the second hour does it begin to heat up.

    Who do you believe? I'll wait and see myself.

    1. Re:Strange... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      As in wait until the download finishes? I'm with you there...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Strange... by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 1
      The review itself seems a little odd to me.

      But if you're looking for something a little more than crash, bang, wallop then this second instalment will leave you cold. Reloaded is crammed full of the cod philosophy that fans of the original loved but which left me distinctly unimpressed.
      The plot is even more convoluted than before and flits between everything from religion to quantum physics and mathematics.

      This reviewer didn't like the plot line of the first one, and didn't like the second one. I liked the plot of the first one, so may be I will like the second one too :) S

    3. Re:Strange... by Drogo+Knotwise · · Score: 1

      The Daily Mirror is one of what the British call "red tops." Let's say it's the British left's answer to the New York Post. I'll go with Time on this one.

    4. Re:Strange... by Legal+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I have nothing to add to this discussion, so mod my post down or whatever, but I have to tell 11223 how much I dig his .sig.

      --
      "The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
    5. Re:Strange... by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Oh, thanks! I'm constantly amazed at how many people actually understand my sig. It's not something I would expect, but I guess the concentration of sci-fi geeks on /. makes it understandable.

  21. Philosophy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality.

    Subtle "philosphical" theme? I'd say more of a junior philosophical theme. The "philosophy" in The Matrix was rather primitive.

    It always seems ironic that people say they like Sci-Fi because it makes them think, yet when something with a low-level philosophy like The Matrix comes along, everyone goes ape over the "questions" it poses and how it makes them think, yet The Matrix was about as advanced philosophically as BASIC is an advanced language.

    No. I correct myself. BASIC is a more advanced language than The Matrix is advanced philosophy.

    1. Re:Philosophy? by phlako66 · · Score: 1

      What you fail to realize is that the Matrix is actually coded in BASIC.

    2. Re:Philosophy? by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      What you fail to realize is that the Matrix is actually coded in BASIC.

      Microsoft VBASIC.

      (That would explain a lot -- like why Deja Vu is a glitch in the Matrix.)

    3. Re:Philosophy? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      Who anointed you the philosophy police? If for a lot of people the The Matrix is subtle and philosophical, well, that's great. At least it makes those people think. Philosophy is a personal thing. Just because you think The Matrix's take on philosophy was primitive doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. For a lot of people, it was probably pretty deep.

    4. Re:Philosophy? by milktoastman · · Score: 1

      I agree...except for the part about liking it. But that's just me.

  22. slightly OT: another great orgy of movie violence by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    The bank robbery scene in HEAT. If you watch this, watch it on a EXTREMELY loud 5.1 (or better) speaker setup. You can FEEL the 5.56 rounds whizzing by your head. This scene justifies surround sound like no other does.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  23. Advertising for The Matrix Reloaded has been awful by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They give far too much of it away, not the plot necessarily, but the action sequences and 'new characters'. I don't see they why they are pimping it so badly. People are going to want to see it anyway. The adverts should have been complete teasers. I'm tired of walking into a movie only to discover I know whats coming because of what I've seen on the adverts.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  24. "subtle phillosophical theme" ? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the phillosophical theme of the matrix was as subtle as a punch in the face.

    And lets face it, if you liked the phillosophical theme you would have preferred Dark City, the matrix predecessor that had a very similar plot (without the action and the kung foo).

    You may as well admit it -- you liked the action.

    1. Re:"subtle phillosophical theme" ? by calethix · · Score: 1

      "You may as well admit it -- you liked the action."

      yup, the action and trinity :)

    2. Re:"subtle phillosophical theme" ? by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Great, finally someone who like me prefered Dark City. It was so simple yet so deep. Definitely more intriguing than The Matrix. It's a shame that they ended it with a big fight though. But otherwise the movie is perfect.

    3. Re:"subtle phillosophical theme" ? by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      And lets face it, if you liked the phillosophical theme you would have preferred Dark City, the matrix predecessor that had a very similar plot (without the action and the kung foo). You may as well admit it -- you liked the action.

      I preferred Dark City. :)

    4. Re:"subtle phillosophical theme" ? by toriver · · Score: 1

      But otherwise the movie is perfect.

      Except they spoil the big surprise in the initial voice-over, which is downright stupid.

    5. Re:"subtle phillosophical theme" ? by Datafage · · Score: 1

      The action was cool... but I'm sorry, Dark City was incredibly boring and I found it LESS philosphical than The Matrix. So... we have these aliens who need to figure out our essence in order to avoid extinction, so they keep rearranging the city and everyone in it in an attempt to do this. Yay? Some guy figures out how it works and can rearrange the city himself, so he fights the aliens, wins, and rearranges the city into a nice one based on his false memories. This doesn't strike me as very deep, no different than if in the Matrix Neo decided to just live in the matrix and make everything happy and warm. The Matrix at least spends more time on the question of what the right course of action is, and Keanu Reaves is nowhere NEAR as annoying as that doctor guy who has to take a breath every other word.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

  25. Not the first by athorshak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ron Epstein, the admin at Home Theater Forum has had a review up for a couple days. Just click on the Reloaded link on the left frame. sorry for no direct link.

  26. Is it part two or part three by supun · · Score: 5, Funny

    where Neo is finds the buffer overflow error in the Matrix and installs Linux over the existing OS, forcing Mr. Smith to live inside VMWare session?

    --
    :w!
    1. Re:Is it part two or part three by crashnbur · · Score: 1
      As if Linux, or anything created by man, could be superior to any machine-perfected Matrix operating system... Nice try!

      p.s.-- Wouldn't there be compatibility issues? How could hacking into the Matrix possibly be the same if a different OS is installed over the existing one? And what about the billions of human lives relying on the stability of the Matrix to survive?

      p.p.s-- Wouldn't Zion's consistent hacking into the Matrix leave imperfections in the code? The perfect operating system is only perfect because it can flawlessly handle billions of plugged-in users at once while perfectly predicting their behaviors both in and outside of the Matrix... Can there be an argument that the Matrix was not built to properly handle intruders via pirated signals?

    2. Re:Is it part two or part three by nexex · · Score: 1

      no no no, its like a mainframe, it just works, no one knows, or remembers, how or why. furthermore, then dont want to know how it works

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    3. Re:Is it part two or part three by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Zion's consistent hacking into the Matrix leave imperfections in the code? The perfect operating system is only perfect because it can flawlessly handle billions of plugged-in users at once while perfectly predicting their behaviors both in and outside of the Matrix... Can there be an argument that the Matrix was not built to properly handle intruders via pirated signals?

      not necessarily. the hacking itself seemed to be mostly information gathering, which would be basically the same as someone using an exploit to read sensitive material, not actually breaking the rules, just using imperfections that were pre-existing to do things that ordinary users couldn't. the Matrix was made to handle intruders, hence the Agents. until Neo learned to manipulate the Matrix (gained root, if you want to use that analogy) the Agents were uncontested. anyone that tried to fight them died. once Neo was in control, then the Agent daemons just weren't enough to stop him.

  27. Agreed, but... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Subtle philosophy? More like blatantly obvious and hackneyed oversimplification of philosophy.

    Agreed, but why the A.C. posting? Didn't pack the flameproof underoos?

    Watching all the fawning over The Matrix makes me wonder how people might react if Bladerunner hadn't been screened until a year ago. People still wouldn't be able to get enough of it and foam at the mouth for a sequel (which, thank God, there hasn't been one.)

    And all this must be making the MPAA do a respectable Montgomery Burns impersonation, "Excellent."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  28. Ima go read me a fortune cookie by isoteareth · · Score: 1

    for my next philosophical mindf*ck...

    "What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality."

    Yeah, I was rocked to my very foundation by a theme that people should have already pondered by the time they were about 12...

    It was a great action movie. That people would be impressed by its "philosophical theme" is a depressing thought.

  29. A Rorschach Test by tomdarch · · Score: 1

    This seems like a situation in which the review may say more about the reviewer than the film. There must be some deep shit going on if Colonel West is proud of being in it. I was planning on waiting for the initial rush to pass, but I somehow suspect that the Oracle is going to do even more mind-messing than in the fist one, so maybe I'll have to fight the crowds...

    1. Re:A Rorschach Test by tomdarch · · Score: 1
      OK, so that site kind of sucked. It's amazing how much there ISN'T about West on the web. Here's the best thing I've found so far:

      http://www.pragmatism.org/library/west/ He's a professor at Princeton (formerly at Harvard) and is frequently cited as one of America's foremost intellectuals.

      "Who is this guy?" Let's put it this way, Bill O'Reiley will never, ever, ever have Colonel West on his show for 'discussion' because West would rip poor, dumb Bill into as many pieces as there were bits of flying debris in the first Matrix. Another way of putting it is that where Chomsky comes at American politics from the perspective of a linguist, West comes at American politics from the perspective of a African-American and a deeply reflective, thoughtful Christian. I guess that the most direct way to get at things is to check out the recording on the link from the above page. He dicusses the need for critical thinking in our anti-intellectual America in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

      What does this have to do with the Matrix? With a bit of research and thinking for yourself you might just figure it out. Too bad it isn't as easy as taking the red pill.

  30. Did you even read the review? by bobwoodard · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm guessing you just skimmed it, since the reviewer actually complains that there is too much of the philisophical mumbo-jumbo.

  31. Subtle? by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ... blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality

    Subtle? It was about as subtle as a foot long brown shit sitting in the middle of a white tablecloth. Philosophical content was borderline nil. The movie was kung fu, action, kung fu, babes and kung fu.

    Also it's "i" before "e" except after "c".

    1. Re:Subtle? by glwtta · · Score: 1
      It was about as subtle as a foot long brown shit sitting in the middle of a white tablecloth. Philosophical content was borderline nil.

      Wait, either it was not subtle or it had no philosophical content - you can't not have something and not be subtle about having it, at the same time. (I think I just confused myself)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Subtle? by calethix · · Score: 1

      "Also it's "i" before "e" except after "c" Not always but you're right in this circumstance."

      According to Lisa Simpson, it's something like 'i before e except when it sounds like a as in neighbor and weigh'

      I'm sure some pedant will jump in with the exact quote and the episode name/number. :)

      Oh, and to make it on topic, if you find that rule doesn't apply then the matrix has you.

    3. Re:Subtle? by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 1

      It WAS subtle - for an action movie.

      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    4. Re:Subtle? by Mossfoot · · Score: 1

      that's just plain weird ;)

      --
      Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
      http://www.fuzzyknights.com
    5. Re:Subtle? by calethix · · Score: 1

      doh!

      I knew there had to be an exception but I couldn't think of it. stupid english language. We should just go back to the old way of communicating: grunt, point and draw pictures. :)

    6. Re:Subtle? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Where were the babes?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re:Subtle? by bakes · · Score: 1

      Also it's "i" before "e" except after "c".

      Except as in science.

      And yes, the theme wasn't subtle, it was the whole premise.

      Philosophy professor: prove that chair exists
      Student: what chair?

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    8. Re:Subtle? by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Since you're gonna be so picky, the kung fu content was borderline nil. There was some ju jitsu, judo, kempo, karate, and tae kwon do, but relatively little kung fu.

      --
      No comment.
    9. Re:Subtle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also it's "i" before "e" except after "c".

      Yeah. English has some wierd spellings, huh?

    10. Re:Subtle? by danro · · Score: 1

      I've seen numerous movies with more subtle themes. The Matrix is about kicking ass and wearing leather.

      And shades, cool shades.

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  32. Re:A review I shall not read by 11223 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And reading Slashdot stories about reviews counts as seeing it cold release how?

  33. Subtle? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Matrix had the subtlety of a Gwar concert!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  34. Neo shouldn't have beaten Agent Smith by Proneax · · Score: 1

    ... In the first movie.

    Wait, then I would have no reason to come back for the sequel. Damn, there goes my movie writing career.

  35. Bogus Review by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 5, Funny
    And Persephone, a sexy bad-girl-turned-good who hooks Neo up with the all-important Keymaker.

    NO NO NO! That's wrong! He's not the Keymaker, he's the Keymaster. And he gets it on with the Gatekeeper before turning into a giant dog - pet of Gozer! Jeeze!

    --
    It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
    - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    1. Re:Bogus Review by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      NO NO NO! That's wrong! He's not the Keymaker, he's the Keymaster. And he gets it on with the Gatekeeper before turning into a giant dog - pet of Gozer! Jeeze!

      There is no spoon, only Zuul.

  36. the philosophy in the first movie by f00zbll · · Score: 3, Insightful
    was decent, but I would hardley call it mind blowing. It definitely did a better of using philosophy than other films, but it doesn't come close to reading the I-ching or the birth of trajedy.

    There's nothing wrong with Pop philosophy, but people need read the original works. Hopefully, the movie inspired some people to go read the original text and really get a mind altering experience.

  37. Well... by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least he gets a sex scene with Moss before he heads off to the city of Zion. It's one of the few breaks from the relentless action

    I don't consider a sex scene a break from action, well, not exactly...

    1. Re:Well... by m00nun1t · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't consider a sex scene a break from action, well, not exactly...

      If you are a /. reader, it's more like a break from tradition.

    2. Re:Well... by sparkalotopus · · Score: 1

      More like a break from Reality!....Maybe we are in a Matrix!

    3. Re:Well... by nailBnny · · Score: 1, Funny

      Watching a sex scene is a break from tradition for the /. reader?

    4. Re:Well... by homesteader · · Score: 1
      If you are a /. reader, it's more like a break from tradition.

      Neo's pr0n just LOOKS more real. Jeez, You missed the whole point!

  38. i can't care less. by dance2die · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't care less about all these bs comments. I watch movies to have fun. As long as I enjoy movie, I don't care about what others think about. (And you know that those criticists don't know jack either like us or know as much as we do in other words :) Wherther to make the Matrix team happy or not, just enjoy the movie folks. That's all. Nobody thinks about the same movie the same way.

    --
    buffering...
  39. MOD THAT UP by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAAHA

    My hat goes off to you sir.

    --RMT

  40. The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor by Rhone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one who enjoyed the The Thirteenth Floor more than The Matrix? They used the same humans-living-in-a-computer concept, but while Matrix turned into a pure action movie, Thirteenth Floor continued to have a plot.

    1. Re:The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      I thought I was the only one too ! Everyone actually made fun of me for liking the 13th floor...

    2. Re:The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor by rookie1 · · Score: 1

      That makes 3 of us...

    3. Re:The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      13th floor was cool. So was Dark City, Cube -- and The Matrix. Who cares which one was "best". I don't rate movies like, ooh that's deep, +2, or punch to the head, -1, cool flying kick, +1, no Sandra Bullock, -5. They're all great movies. :)

    4. Re:The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor by Rhone · · Score: 1

      Sure, but sometimes movies are inexplicably, perplexingly overrated, which is really my only beef with the Matrix. I enjoyed The Matrix for the action movie with good special effects that it was. It really wasn't much more than that. The premise was cool, but only really seemed to exist as a shallow excuse for the special effects.

      Thirteenth Floor took the same premise and gave me characters I actually cared about and a deeper plot, which made it a more enjoyable movie for me. Thus, I find it a little strange that so many supposedly deep-thinking intellectual geeks drool over the Matrix but completely overlook the Thirteenth Floor.

    5. Re:The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      Well said, although I'm not sure I agree that Matrix is overrated. The sequels may be grossly overhyped, but the original is still a pretty good action movie. Personally though, all of the above mentioned films struck a deeper cord with me than Matrix, but I still enjoyed Matrix a lot and do look forward to seeing the sequels.

  41. Subtle? by Gondola · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you thought that theme was subtle, you don't get out much.

    I've seen numerous movies with more subtle themes. The Matrix is about kicking ass and wearing leather.

  42. But that's the whole point by Little+Grey · · Score: 3, Informative

    The whole story was written from the beginning as a trilogy, so the 2nd part was the setup for the huge war. So whether it's an all-out action movie or not, it's exactly what the brothers intended it to be from the start.

    1. Re:But that's the whole point by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Kind of reminds you of some movies by a Mr. Lucas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:But that's the whole point by gozar · · Score: 1

      It was not written from the beginning as a trilogy. If you go back and read the interviews and the talk on the newsgroups, the Wachowski brothers were thinking of a sequel because of the buzz just before the movie was released. In fact, one interview said they were thinking about the second movie being a prequel.

      "We could do a prequel and a sequel to this episode or two prequels or two sequels. The story and characters lend themselves to any number of permutations and combinations." - Andy Wachowski (on the possibilities of more Matrix movies) Source: Calgary Sun

      So there was no planned story arc, no big plans.

      --
      What, me worry?
    3. Re:But that's the whole point by kindbud · · Score: 1

      The whole story was written from the beginning as a trilogy...

      I've heard that line before. So when do you suppose the W. Bros. will unleash the cute plush animals with silly 3rd world accents that accidentally save the day?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  43. Re:slightly OT: another great orgy of movie violen by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

    Oh yes. And a great big screen so you can see the action moving on Pacino's rifle when he drops that fat guy.

  44. matrix && pop culture by bloosqr · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Matrix is has philosophical overtones in the same way Philip K Dick has philosophical overtones. Admittedly, I am a HUGE PKD fan but in sheer entertainment/fictional value the pulp-sensibilities of reality and perception (aka practically any pkd novel or movies like the matrix/existenz etc etc) still win me over, over say plowing through "kierkegaard/descartes/sartre etc etc" or pynchon/delillo and their ilk :)

    -bloosqr

  45. special effects, bah by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Even with all the special effects the scene in the Matrix that most impressed be was when they are shooting up the building from the helicapter and there are bullets just raining down.

    Something about that scene just seamed awsome to me.

    I liked the crazy action more in crouching tiger personaly.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  46. I dont know anything about the matrix. by terbo · · Score: 1

    I dont know anything about the matrix.
    At least, not anything that can be described in words.

    >>But if you're looking for something a little >>more than crash, bang, wallop then this second >>instalment will leave you cold.
    later on ..
    >>The plot is even more convoluted than before >>and flits between everything from religion to
    >>quantum physics and mathematics.

    Yea, I wouldnt expect the true nature of reality
    to be all that simple, at least to humans, so
    how is this guy qualified to judge how much
    ""information"" is in the sequal? Of course, I
    dont see information on how he viewed the first
    Matrix ..

    Anyway, I also noted that the three matrix release
    dates, including the planned Revolutions date,
    all coincide with full moons or a couple days off.. sounds pretty unusual. Im sure they planned
    it .. buy why?

    --
    If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
  47. Mmm...hypocrisy... by EchoMirage · · Score: 1

    Slashdot editor, before seeing the movie, on The Matrix Reloaded:
    I'll hold judgement until the closing credits myself.

    Slashdot editor, before seeing the movie, on any new Star Wars movie:
    Bitch bitch bitch George Lucas sucks insulting blah blah suck suck bitch bitch.

    1. Re:Mmm...hypocrisy... by bedurndurn · · Score: 1

      Well fine.. when the people who made the Matrix drop two craptastic sequels (one featuring a CGI ebonics speaking Morpheus) on us I guess we'll start complaining before we see the next one they come out with. Happy now?

  48. Re:slightly OT: another great orgy of movie violen by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    you mean Tom Sizemore? Yeah that was a epic moment right there. Any good game sniper feels that way when you have that PERFECT head shot. (Quickly followed by cries of "YOU ASSHOLE" from your buddy across the room, god i love work place lan gaming)

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  49. please wachowskis! no bullshit by violently_ill · · Score: 1

    i really hope the next matrix doesn't go pseudoscience, pop-philosophy, cheeseball on us. the first movie definitely flirted with disaster a couple of times, but always managed to pull out a witty or well-phrased tidbit of legitimate philsophy or science. with the success of the first film, the wachowski's now have carte blanche to spew out whatever they want. let's hope they're smart about what they include in the film. i fear the influence of eastern philosophy (read: bullshit) and classical western philosophy (read: bullshit) will taint the next two films. what bothers me is that there's so much modern, totally groundbreaking work being done in neuroscience and philosophy of mind that are probably just going to be ignored. i'm talking about guys like dennett, fodor, searle, turing, dawkins, and damassio. why does the matrix have to dig up what some ancient dead guy said from a time when they thought the soul lived inside our pineal glands and that our brains were just radiators (descartes and aristotle, respectively). those guys might have been really smart for their time, but that was a long time ago. today's simpleton's are capable of understanding the natural world in much greater depth than any of the great philosophers or scientists of the distant past.

    1. Re:please wachowskis! no bullshit by violently_ill · · Score: 1

      i'm talking about the turing who made the amazing, dead-on prediction in 1950 that in 2000 there would be computers with at least 128MB of memory (see "computing machinery and intelligence"). also, AI can fit on a tape.

  50. To quote Orson Scott Card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What matters is which fiction you believe."

  51. Beating up a scarecrow by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Also, it is considered of higher intellectual integrity to kindly consider a piece's arguments and fill them out as you would if you were the person proposing them in opposition to your own arguments.

    I agree that it's polite to fix flaws in an argument that can easily be fixed, but read on...

    Knocking a work because it does not address what you are arguing is of very low class.

    Then why, when I read Slashdot, do I so often come upon accusations of putting forth a "straw man" argument? Is it because Slashdot "is of very low class"?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Beating up a scarecrow by sstamps · · Score: 1

      Then why, when I read Slashdot, do I so often come upon accusations of putting forth a "straw man" argument? Is it because Slashdot "is of very low class"?

      Asked and answered in the same question... nice!

      This begs the next obvious question: Why do we do it? Because, even us "geniuses" have to go slummin' every once in a while.. :P

      --
      -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    2. Re:Beating up a scarecrow by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Let's ride this thread!

      Seriously, I'll attempt to say something. If you find that it either answers or clarifies your question, I'll be happy. Wish me luck. ;-)

      A straw man argument is the case when you introduce flaws into another's argument. The point of extending an argument in the best way you can --- note that this means the way which would hurt your own argument the most should not introduce flaws. In fact, your extension to the argument should never be what you argue against[1].

      The point of the extension is to provide answers that the original arguer[2] would have provided if he could respond to you. If it turns out that you are wrong about how he would cogently respond to your arguments, then it means that you did not fully grasp his argument to begin with, and the next round of debate ensues.

      This is all based upon the theory that arguments (in philosophy, at least) should be one or lost based on fundamental logical flaws in one person or another's argument, not by nit picking.

      One of my personal pet theories is that most arguments can be drastically reduced in form by cogent and amiable argumentation in a genre/species format (How do we agree? How do we disagree?). So far I have found this to be a very friendly and effective tool for solving mental conflicts --- provided the other person is willing to play ball.

      Anyways, I hope this answered the question. If it didn't, reply with something I can work with, and I'll give it a shot. Or someone else will, this is Slashdot!

      [1] Uless the argument was so ill stated to begin with that you have to rephrase it to argue against it --- in which case the honest thing to do is to clearly state the most cogent argument you can think of that could be equivalent to your opposition's statements.

      [2] Or ideal if you see a flaw in his thinking that can be repaired and still leave whole his theory.

  52. Speaking of Pinket.. by cioxx · · Score: 5, Funny
    I loved this part of the article.
    "KEANU Reeves turned his moribund career around by taking the part of Neo. But it could have been a lot different. Ewan McGregor and Will Smith both turned down the part before the Speed star snapped it up."

    Imagine Will Smith getting Neo's role then doing the soundtrack to Matrix. That would have been a disaster of Battlefield Earth meets Wild Wild West proportions.

    Can you imagine the famous Hallway Shootout sequence and Will Smith rapping in the background?
    1. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by aweraw · · Score: 1

      Very nearly could have been crap...

      --
      5468652047616D65
    2. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Having said that, imagine Ewan MacGregor. We know he can go from Trainspotting (think thin, pale) for the real world to ATOTC (action hero) for the Matrix. I think he would have added a lot more dimension to Neo than Keanu did.

      I quite like the first film with Keanu, and I think it's his best role to date (which isn't saying much, but admit it - you didn't cringe at his acting in Matrix like you did in his other films). But I think a film with Ewan would have been a really interesting choice.

      You're right, though. Will Smith has a lot going for him, but he might have ruined The Matrix.

    3. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you imagine the famous Hallway Shootout sequence and Will Smith rapping in the background?

      I now know that I can. Thanks a lot...

    4. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by teslatug · · Score: 1

      I chose not to choose the red pill. I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got the Matrix?"

    5. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by bubkus_jones · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, I liked Bill & Ted. He was perfect for that role.

    6. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by rf0 · · Score: 1

      Well thats just given me nightmares for the next month thanks. Just thinking of Boom Boom Shake the Room and the lobby scene sort of fits I suppose

      Rus

    7. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by wheany · · Score: 1

      Imagine Will Smith getting Neo's role

      You know the difference between you and me? I make this look pretty god damn amazing!

    8. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Point Break.

      Yeah, nobody believed he was actually an FBI-agent-cum-surfer either. That movie was an example of "how to assemble a lame cast".

      Personally I'd rather have seen Jonny Depp in Matrix instead. That'd be alot more interesting than Captain Whoa.

    9. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by xaaronx · · Score: 1

      Mods, throw some points his way: it's funny and interesting (for a two-liner). Plus he'll hurl game systems at you if you don't!

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
    10. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by budcub · · Score: 1

      I've always thought it would have been awesome if Morpheus could have been played by Bruce Lee, and Neo be played by Brandon Lee. Can you imagine the sparring room scene with father and son matched against each other?

    11. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by marklar1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. This is bull shit, but I guess I'll take the bait. If you saw the Matrix, you might remember Laurence Fishburne? You know, the well spoken, accomplished actor that had the other major role, and in fact, mentored neo down the path of enlightenment? Nah, you'll just sit there and have a knee-jerk reflex attitude about your race. White america wants people regardless of their "culture" to be able to show up for school or work prepared to read and write standard english and math skills. They want self-reliant people who do their job, get paid for their SKILLS, and don't threaten to call the NAACP when they are held accountable. They want police in chicago who aren't given jobs to meet quotas regardless of how they scored on standardized tests. (or for entrance to higher education) Take responsibility. Don't breed unless you have the tools to provide and mentor a youngster - whether you're white/black/latino, whatever. Nobody gives a hoot what your skin color is. Most black people will continue to go on choosing to seperate themselves from success by not learning and sticking to the basics. Blacks will be free when they learn the difference between celebrating cultural heritage, and celibrating a culture of poverty and lowest common denominators. When success is celebrated and embraced (regardless of whether it has been traditionally "white" in this country) instead of violence, athletics, and music. Learning to be mainstream (courteous, well spoken) at appropriate times. Go tell Laurence he's being discriminated against. Dumb ass

    12. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a Coke commercial!

      --

      "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    13. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by johnjay · · Score: 2, Informative

      I always liked the fact that Keanu was so flat in the first movie. My take on it is that he's sort of an idiot-savant: a perfect weapon for the simplified world of The Matrix, but real people would find him rather -- limited.

      I'm sure Ewan would have given more depth to the role, but considering all of the schlock philosophy, the extra depth would have been out of place.

      As a side note, that guy with the sideburns (was his character's name Dozer?) who always stayed on the ship was such a ridiculous hack that, next to him, Keanu looked like Olivier.

    14. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by takotech · · Score: 1

      Guy with the side burns was Tank. As in, "I need an exit." His brother was Dozer. But I agree. That dude couldn't act his way out of Seaseme Street.

    15. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by fwoomp · · Score: 1

      "...it could have been a lot different. Ewan McGregor and Will Smith both turned down the part before the Speed star snapped it up."

      The really funny thing is...at first glance for just a split second, I thought it said Wil Wheaton. :-)

      --

      --
      Happy Fun Ball got first post...because I taunted it.
    16. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Hey, I liked Bill & Ted. He was perfect for that role.

      Yes, Ewan MacGregor was perfect for that role, unfortunately Keanu turned out to be the better performer.

      Yes, it was stupid, but I haven't posted 25 times yet today.

    17. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > This is bull shit, but I guess I'll take the bait

      Hey! Don't you know it's not very nice to tell the truth? Well, maybe the real problem is that it's not very nice to hear the truth, especially when that truth is about you & not what fits into your oppressed picture. (not, you, marklar... you, the guy who posted the orig.)

    18. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Can you imagine the sparring room scene with father and son matched against each other?

      That would be really cool, but I think (given both still being alive) that would not happen, as at least Bruce might object to digitally altering the fighting. I know I would rather see Bruce doing real moves instead of Matrix moves -- they impress me a lot more.

    19. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      The only reason he was good in the matrix 1 was because he was playing the part of a true dumbass who is supposed to have no idea whats going on. I fail to see why they signed him for the next two movies...

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    20. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by LilGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree! I never thought of Johnny Depp being in the matrix as there weren't any drug references.. but then I over look the pill popping scene. They woulda done a roll on that scene alone as I'm sure they couldn't have stopped him from popping both pills.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    21. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by r33per · · Score: 1
      you didn't cringe at his acting in Matrix like you did in his other films

      Ah yes. But Keanu's films are best when the lines are mixed and matched.

      "I am Bill Presten Esq."
      "And my name is Neo, Bill."
      "And together we want a phone call."

      Stu

    22. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by goofrider · · Score: 1

      "Will Smith has a lot going for him, but he might have ruined The Matrix."

      I cinged at first too when I thought what if Will Smith got it.

      But then, think about it, what if it was before the first Matrix was released and I told you Keanu Reeves was gonna be in a new sci-fi movie, whose previous sci-fi credits includes Johnny Mnemonic and Chained Reactions?

      At least Men in Black and Independance Day looked better on a resume!!!

      And I guess we all forgot Will Smith does know how to act. Remember Six Degrees of Separation?

      What I admired the Brothers in the casting is that they seem to make a point in having a racially diversed cast. In Reloaded, we get not one, but two Asian characters.

  53. subtle, like a duracell? by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean subtle, like holding a Duracell(tm) battery to explain an energy cell to the audience?
    Or subtle like Oracle(tm) pointing the audience to a chicken/egg circumstance that will "bake our noodle"?

    1. Re:subtle, like a duracell? by m1chael · · Score: 1

      must buy duracell batteries, must buy duracell batteries, must buy duracell batteries...

      im pretty sure they chose duracell because its the most distinct looking battery there is (that i know of), besides 'copper top' sounds good. its not like they had the energizer avatar on a red leather chair giving the lowdown to neo.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  54. Conflicting reviews sell tickets by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Now, this flatly contradicts what this week's Time Magazine claimed

    Full disclosure: The company that publishes Time magazine (AOL Time Warner) published this film.

    Who do you believe? I'll wait and see myself.

    Conspiracy theory: The Time review was expressly designed to contradict other published reviews in order to prompt a response like yours: ticket sales.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Conflicting reviews sell tickets by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > .. the circle, huh? P2P was designed for freedom. This isn't.

      I like off-topic posts... I agree. If that person can get your IP, etc, then that means that, if it is what he says it is, anyone can get that info. Screw that, it should be anonymous.

  55. Is CmdrTaco Boring? by tealover · · Score: 1

    If you look at the stories he posts, they're all rather inconsequential topics. Comics, anime, games, movies, etc. Really nothing political. Hardly anything of a substantive value. And rarely anything truly about the Open Source environment.

    It seems that once Taco sold out, he forgot about developing a personality and interests that go beyond his own self. I wonder if his wife is a equally as insignificant. I pray to God that someone in that family cares about something real.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  56. Philosophical by Kwil · · Score: 1

    Supposedly the third one is supposed to be where it gets most philosophical.

    I figure the W. brothers will use that part to bludgeon us over the head with the idea that Neo is actually the anti-christ, with morpheus being satan himself.

    Consider:
    1. They kill wantonly within the Matrix. They are even encouraged to do so. We are told that when you die in the matrix, you die in real life.
    2. He does so in a fight against an entity that won once before and is effectively all knowing to all the people there (ie, God)
    3. The only other alternative is to "take" you from the matrix, into a world of damp, gruel, and constant fear. This seems to be a pretty good definition of hell if you ask me.
    4. The ultimate objective is to take everybody from their current existance into this hell-like world.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Philosophical by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Well you know, Keanu Reeves also played the son of Satan in the Devil's Advocate, so I figure the producers of the Matrix thought they would cast him into the same role as before, as Neo, the anti-christ.

    2. Re:Philosophical by The+Benefactor · · Score: 1

      I like it, it would make for a dark ending, which is a bit more than Hollywood tends to put out these days. Of course if this turns out to be true wouldn't an awful lot of religious groups protest at the film portraying evil as the "good guys". Think of the protests raised over Harry Potter and there was never any doubt over him being the "good guy".

      --
      To err is human, to arr is pirate.
  57. Don't forget ... by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

    Leather and boobs.

    1. Re:Don't forget ... by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      Leather and boobs. ..and if that's not philosophical, I don't know what is.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  58. Review contradicts itself by altek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But if you're looking for something a little more than crash, bang, wallop then this second instalment will leave you cold. Reloaded is crammed full of the cod philosophy that fans of the original loved but which left me distinctly unimpressed.

    Huh??? So if you're a fan of the philosophy it will leave you cold, but yet it is crammed full of the philosophy that fans of the original loved??

    If you're looking for a deep, meaningful cinematic experience then The Matrix Reloaded is not for you. But if it's a non-stop rollercoaster ride you're after, then this movie is light years ahead of anything that's gone before.

    Ok great, so it's going to be a good action flick, but why does he assume that even though it is 'crammed full' of the philosophy content, that you won't like it? Just because he wasn't a fan of that part of the film?

    methinks this review was written rather hastily, no?

    --
    THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
  59. Don't by cr4zyb0y · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those who could only find subtexts that any ten year old can find, shouldn't blame the source, rather their analytical skills. That the Matrix is merely a comment on Plato's "shadows on the cave wall" is oversimplifying (or dare I say it! too hard for you critics to see!). There's more to the Matrix than a first-year Introduction to Philosophy. The references to poststructuralism are explicit, and more importantly, intended. Look closely at the book that Neo keeps his mini-disc in--read the books and the theory surrounding THAT text (and understand it!), and then come back and criticise--just make sure you know what you're talking about first. Until then, maybe you should learn the first lesson that a first year philosophy student learns--just because you don't see something, it doesn't mean there's nothing there.

  60. Give me a break... by sudog · · Score: 1

    "subtle philosophy" in the original Matrix?

    Gimme a break. The science behind the Matrix is anything but. The only thing that made these films great was the harrowing action sequences.

  61. heres a tip by m1chael · · Score: 1

    dont read these reviews no matter how tempted you are if you havent seen the movie. rather watch the trailer for the 1000th time.

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  62. The Matrix -- Get Over It by istartedi · · Score: 1

    <rant>

    I just don't get all this obsession with The Matrix. Yeah, it was a cool movie. So what?

    So. The sequel is "just an action flick". What do you expect? I mean, the first movie captured the goth and hacker aesthetics. Furthermore, it did so with a decent plot line. Also, it did that during a time when freaks were making $60,000 as "web designers". Now those people have normal hair cuts and colors, have pulled their piercings, and are either layed off or underemployed. Goth and network admin poseurs are so 90s now.

    So what are you expecting from The Matrix Reloaded?

    Quit reloading Slashdot, and quit reloading your life. Make something new. Something different. I don't care what you do. Go to Afghanistan, feed some kids, and get yourself shot. I really don't care. Just quit pissing and moaning about some stupid Hollywood attempt to milk what they think is a cash cow (but really isn't) and come back when you have something interesting to talk about.

    </rant>

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  63. allegory of the cave by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 1

    Actually, the matrix applise much more to Plato's Allegory of the Cave (google search, or buy a copy of the Repubic) than it does to Descartes. Descartes main motivation behind meditations was merely to prove skeptics wrong that nothing could be proven true.

    the allegory of the cave takes a much more insightful approach toward is what we see truly reality or not. and even if it isnt, is it not more real to us than reality? this is where the whole 'platonic conception' of an idea being more real than reality originated.

    --
    the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
  64. This movie is a continuation... by DannyiMac · · Score: 1

    After seeing the first Matrix, I'm sure you felt blown away like I did. Later on, I wanted to know what happens next, is humanity doomed forever to be traped in a prison? This is what the next two movies are about... Yeah, there's going to be a lot of action in this one because action is required for the salvation of humanity. The newness has worn off, now it's time for fighting not thinking, maybe in Revolutions there will be more philosophical material, I don't know, maybe the ending to the series is that they find out they're in another Matrix! Whoa. (If it is, I'll shoot myself in the head.) I cannot wait for Reloaded... it's going to kick ass as the review said. Maybe one can think of the sequels as Men In Black II, nothing new was discovered, they had already introduced their secret organization. What are they going to do, introduce another one? I don't care, The Matrix series is my Star Wars.

    I don't know... need to study for finals... ACK!

    --
    - Danny
  65. old dead Greek and Europeans guys by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Are the worst of philosophers - Kant, Hume, Plato - if people can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, THEY'RE to blame. The old dead Europeans were good at proving their irrelevance (irrationalism, scepticism, etc.) REAL philosophy is set forth by people like Aristotle, Newton, Rand.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  66. Matrix Reloaded Roulette by Lord-StarFury · · Score: 1

    Here's how to play: Fire up Kazaa. Search either for Matrix Reloaded or Matrix II Download matching file(s). Mailbomb the idiot that's hosting the stupid renamed movie. So far I've come up with: Almost Famous Fight Club Dumb and Dumber and The Little Mermaid Fun fun fun!

    --
    ...then the old man said to me, "It's jivin' time."
    1. Re:Matrix Reloaded Roulette by Azathoth!EDC · · Score: 1

      Saving Private Ryan, here.

  67. This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    AICN had the first review of Matrix Reloaded online quite a while ago. I don't know who Slashdot is trying to fool.

    AICN has been running reviews all week, in fact. Sigh.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >AICN had the first review of Matrix Reloaded online quite a while ago. I don't know who Slashdot is trying to fool.

      It's not slashdot. That's the headline on this story. Tell the mirror they're lying, not slashdot.

      >michael, cybersquatter

      michael, stalked by seth.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Sandman1971 · · Score: 1, Troll

      AICN? A movie review from my 95 year old grandma holds more water than any review AICN can muster. AICN is a crap site, run by an egotestical (yeah, I'm spelling it right) fatass who knows nothing about movies.

      --
      It's better to burn out than to fade away
    3. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by leifm · · Score: 1

      No more than likely Harry posted 5 pages of what he was doing for 48 hours before he saw it, what he ate for breakfast, how many times he peed that day, AND THEN IT WAS THE MOST INCREDIBLE MOVIE HE EVER SAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      AICN IS A *JOKE*.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    4. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's not slashdot. That's the headline on this story. Tell the mirror they're lying, not slashdot.

      Slashdot posted the link. Look at the headline for the posted link.

      Next.

      michael, stalked by seth.

      Who hasn't read that already? The question still remains why michael is cybersquatting on www.censorware.org. Cybersquatting has been criticized by Slashdot before, yet michael himself does it. You can disagree if you want (though I feel it's clear michael acted in a very odd fashion, taking the site down and so forth), but you can't change the fact that he's cybersquatting for no reason other than spite, which is incredibly childish considering the cause of the site was supposed to be pure. He renewed the domain. Why? He'll never tell.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Slashdot posted the link. Look at the headline for the posted link.

      Oh, I know that. But you have to credit the editors for at least reading the article this time (which is where the headline originated). They might be wrong, but to a certain degree you need to trust newspapers (then again, this is the Mirror).

      As far as Seth and Michael go, cybersquatting is hypocritical and wrong of Michael. But being stalked is far more personal and scary. I'd rather someone cybersquat on my domain than stalk me anyday.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    6. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Another thing I disagree with is that there was "stalking" at all.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    7. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by shepd · · Score: 1

      Well, you're certainly free to disagree with it, but if you're going to base your opinions on webpages alone, it seems that you should support both pages equally, as they both have a lot of "evidence" available on them. ;-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    8. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Nobody should ever hijack a well-intentioned website and hold it for no reason other than spite.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    9. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      "egotestical"

      If you were going for a juxtaposition of 'egotistical' with the name of the male organ 'testicle', I believe you'd have been closer to the mark with 'egotesticle'.

    10. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Nobody should ever hijack a well-intentioned website and hold it for no reason other than spite.

      At the same time, "cyber" crimes are FAR less hurtful than IRL crimes, like stalking.

      That is, unless you happen to be hooked up electrically to your computer or something...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    11. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Good thing no stalking took place.

      "Stalking" accusations are bandied about much too freely in this day and age, like "rape."

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    12. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Good thing no stalking took place.

      In that case, no cybersquatting took place, either.

      "Cybersquatting" accusations are bandied about much too freely in this day and age, like "rape."

      See, we can both play the "personal websites are bullshit" game. Either that or you have to admit both sites are true. Or admit you are Seth, and therefore know the true story (from your side). Which is it? :-)

      Unless, of course, you know of a more reliable source for this information, such as a major news outlet.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    13. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      In that case, no cybersquatting took place, either.

      Go to a little place called http://www.censorware.org. Unlike the unproven stalking claims, michael is freely cybersquatting Censorware.org to this day. Anyone can go there and see he's turned it into a bizarre page about his arch nemesis. He is clearly cybersquatting--you can go there yourself and see it with your own eyes. Tell me what purpose it serves for him to continuously renew the domain like that.

      "Cybersquatting" accusations are bandied about much too freely in this day and age, like "rape."

      No, they're not.

      See, we can both play the "personal websites are bullshit" game.

      I'm glad you admit michael has turned Censorware.org into his personal website of bullshit.

      Either that or you have to admit both sites are true.

      Why do I have to admit that? Michael is clearly cybersquatting. I don't care about his stupid little spat with Seth what's-his-name. On one hand, we've got michael's baseless claims for "stalking." On the other hand, we have clear claims that he takes over websites and is cybersquatting. The advantage the latter has is that you can see for yourself.

      Or admit you are Seth, and therefore know the true story (from your side). Which is it? :-)

      Admit it; you think I have some sort of biased agenda and have thought so all along. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's simply that obvious that michael is cybersquatting.

      Unless, of course, you know of a more reliable source for this information, such as a major news outlet.

      Nope. I don't need one. All I have to do is type "www.censorware.org" into my browser's address bar, hit the Enter key, and the page will load, and I can immediately see that michael is cybersquatting the website for personal reasons and spite. It's that simple.

      Next.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    14. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by shepd · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's ask this question:

      Why are either of the two sites up? Neither do well for either reputation.

      Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they're both just babies, being that they seem to hold grudges for years on end.

      The stupidity of these two has caused them to be expatriated from a good project with a like idea (censorware.net).

      BOTH of them need to give it up, as neither is enjoying any benefits from this cat fight. If I were an employer (well, I will be in a month or two) I'd tell them both to fuck off if they hold grudges for this long.

      Michael, Seth, I implore you BOTH to shut down your pages.

      As far as censorware.org goes, who gives a fuck? Censorware.net seems to be doing just fine without it -- better than ever, it seems. In fact, the censorware project seems to work best without these two nuts. Besides, this isn't an extortion case, I don't see any monetary offers going on. It's a personal grudge match, and belongs at the WWWF, at best.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    15. Re:This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Finally, you say something I agree with. Both people are idiots.

      However, I still enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of michael's cybersquatting, even if censorware.net is doing just fine. It's the principle of it. Michael has no need nor reason to maintain his stranglehold on the website. His only motivation is to bash Seth. It's ridiculous and childish.

      I don't give two shits and a fuck about their spat, really. I just hate cybersquatters. They deprive things from other people that they don't need.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
  68. this just in. by birdman666 · · Score: 1

    According to the Iraqi Information Minister, there is no spoon. Oh, wait...

    --

    Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
  69. Spoiler scared by ehiris · · Score: 1

    Have you ever scrolled through an article that you are interested in, while trying really hard not to read it?

    It's a very funny feeling.

  70. Screening by PorkCharSui · · Score: 1
    I actually got to attend a screening put on by WB for the entertainment industry, and I would agree that the philosophical content is lacking, however that is to be expected since the backround behind the Matrix has already been established.

    RELOADED focuses on more story and plot movement for the next movie, which will close the machine/man battle. The scene between Neo and the Archiect is pretty philosophical though and brings a very important plot twist that might change the entire Zion movement.

  71. har har har by falsification · · Score: 4, Insightful
    a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality.

    ROTFLMAO.

    Oh yes, The Matrix, a movie, was so very, very subtle. And philosophic. It practically put Plato to shame. Oh, we are so sophisticated here. Hmmm. Could we build on this deep, deep insight and discuss how Biodome compares with Kierkegaard? "No! I will not be limited by your limited metaphysical world!"

    1. Re:har har har by GS11_Pus · · Score: 1

      Until today, I had always suspected, but never was fully convinced that so many assholes read Slashdot.

      Posts like this leave no doubt.

      This whole thread has been littered by egocentric, self-important assholes who have nothing better to do than insult other people to feel better about themselves.

      To those assholes I say fuck you.

      There, now this egocentric asshole feels better.

    2. Re:har har har by milktoastman · · Score: 1

      But The Matrix was lame. Really, it was.

  72. Re:A review I shall not read by benna · · Score: 1

    Didn't read the review.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  73. Not First Review at all. by idontneedanickname · · Score: 4, Informative
    This isn't the "World Exclusive" at all. One need look no further than reuters.com

    Film Review: the Matrix Reloaded

    1. Re:Not First Review at all. by xaaronx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine that, misinformation on Slashdot!

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
  74. What's left to meditate on? by crashnbur · · Score: 1
    The first movie set up the Matrix universe and we've asked most of the philosophical questions that are going to be asked. Once the universe has been introduced and the questions are raised, there isn't much more philosophy to bring into it. All they can do now is play with it, which is why Reloaded should be an action movie -- and the best of all time, I might add, given the hype.

    If most of the questions have already been asked, then we can only hope for two things out of this movie: (1) it should generate much more discussion and perhaps a few more questions; (2) the action and special effects should be beyond all we have seen in film before.

    Where are the skeptics?! :-)

  75. Cod philosophy? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    WTF is the "cod philosophy"? Is that some British expression? A cod is a fish, right?

    1. Re:Cod philosophy? by presearch · · Score: 1

      WTF is the "cod philosophy"?

      I think it's that whole "Teach a man to fish.." thing.

  76. Philosophy Class by govt-serpent · · Score: 1

    I think philosophy professors should teach the class while all the time blasting machine guns, having sex and doing kung fu shit. That would make philosophy more understandable. And yeah, have Mr Smith poke his face into class once in a while too. We'd have the whole class score A's.

  77. Philosophy? by rve · · Score: 1

    In what way was part one something other than and all out sci-fi action movie?

    I liked it, it didn't have space aliens and intergalactic empires for a change, but i didn't discern any "subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality."

  78. Haven't even seen it, and I'm already complaining by greck · · Score: 3, Funny

    In one of the key scenes, Neo battles it out with first just one Smith, then eight, then 24 and finally 100.

    1, 8, 24, 100? That's not a very apropos way for a computer-generated anything to replicate.

    Yes, please shoot me already.

  79. "...a subtle philosphical theme..." by Shturmovik · · Score: 1

    BWARHARHARHARHAR...! Nice one dude. I guess it's right there on the shelf next to Keanu's Best Actor Oscars. BWARHARHAR...!

  80. Subtle philosphical theme!? by batlock · · Score: 1

    There's actually more philosophy in Conan the Barbarian.

    --

    Batlock...

  81. _ DOH! by PARENA · · Score: 1

    "Sounds like the Wachowski borthers have gone for an all out action movie which is a shame if true. What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality."

    Or maybe the reviewer didn't pick up the subtle philosophical theme in this one.

    --
    Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
  82. Matrix and Marx by Snafoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay, so it isn't 'subtle', but I think that the philosophical content of the Matrix resembles a late twentieth-century Marxist retort to postmodern/anarchist ethics, rather than a disembodied echo of Plato or Descartes. (In reply to apologists for the former reading: The 'real world' is far too dirty, and requires a revolution of consciousness in order to attain, rather than death, a la Plato. Plato suggests that the best we can hope for as mortals is _knowledge_ of forms, which is quite different from perception. And as for Descartes --- well, if you're painting with strokes that thick, we might as well say that any ontology which clearly distinguishes between perception and reality is Cartesian; ie, almost all philosophy ever written.) Consider the indicators: The antagonist is a 'Mr Smith' (get it? As in 'Adam'?). The object of Neo is to 'awaken' the citizens from the fripperies and consolations of decadence to the reality of tje exploitation of their energies (labour). Sure, the task will require complete subordination to those leading the revolution, but, as ugsome as such a prospect might be to senses of personal dignity and liberty, it is certainly to be favoured over the false liberty of cosmopolitan capitalism.

    Or maybe it's just a movie.

    --
    - undoware.ca
    1. Re:Matrix and Marx by zephc · · Score: 1

      yes, it's just a movie. I've seen pro-Marxist arguments attributed to so many various movies, it's nuts. Seeing things that are not there seems to be a mark of socialist/marxist writings.

      P.S. we don't live in a capitalist country anymore (assuming youre in a 'western' country). Capitalism is just a sugar-coated topping, a veneer over a massively controlled fascist (corporatist) economic system. It's virtualy impossible to even have a small personal business without the gov't getting involved. Fuck you, Mussolini, fuck you hard.

      Wow, that was off-topic.

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    2. Re:Matrix and Marx by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      ...except in Britain, not even the trains run on time. :-]

      --

  83. Read yer bible. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    People will initially mistake the Anti-Christ for the Christ.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  84. aka Starwars, Aliens, Terminator.... by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who can come up with a story

    - as original as the original

    - or terms of "the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality"

    - AND that fits as a sequel

    Gets my full respect. Matrix1 was a great idea of course, not original but new for screen and done to brilliance of course.

    I supect there'll be no surprises for our expectations of the movie.

    Only really hard core fans and hype wishers will be screwed - overly wishful thinking.

    Don't worry it'll be a nice trilogy.

    re: Aliens, Terminator:),StarWars

    1. Re:aka Starwars, Aliens, Terminator.... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      original starwars was an unbelievably good trilogy, i agree. trminator isn't complete yet (i guess T3 is comming this year, right ?) so we can't judge. Aliens wasn't a trilogy since the whole series has four flics, and the third sucks, while the fourth stinks. so take only the first 2 movies in account when discussing the Aliens series.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    2. Re:aka Starwars, Aliens, Terminator.... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Yes, alien 4 stinks, but that pale human/alien hybrid thing that gets sucked into space at the end was for some reason the scariest monster I've ever seen in a movie.

      I dunno why, it just was. *shudder*

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    3. Re:aka Starwars, Aliens, Terminator.... by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

      was really trying to push the `1st is greatest` idea most

  85. WTF is up with this crap? by abolith · · Score: 1
    everyone is bitching about if the matrix:reloaded is going to be good or not. all that shit comes down to just a few simple things. first as long as you enjoy yourself and the movie who the fuck cares? and second is as long as you know what to expect (i.e. action, drama ect..) and the general caliber of the movie than you likley won't be dissapointed.

    --
    if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
  86. honestly folks by salmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, I enjoy The Matrix as much as the next geek, but please. Philisophical content??? The basic idea of the mind/reality seperation has been around longer than Descartes' subjectivist turn in his Meditations. Let's not put too much value in these films. They throw a mild technology element into an idea thats existed for a long time. I think the production and mythological element should be much more valued. Maybe I've just spent too much of my life buried in books (yes the ones with paper pages and ink type) but I didn't find the "world isn't real" aspect of the film(s) to be that shocking or original. It was mildly interesting at best. But the way it was presented in combination with the way that their (semi)religion was presented in the context played out in a very interesting manner.

    The X-Men saga is about as interesting philisophically with the alagory (that whole civil rights thing). Then again, I'm excited about these flicks as well.

    Both, I think fall in the good movies as opposed to good films category (call me snobby! please!). Apocalypse Now was a great film. Fritz Lang's catalogue were great films. The Matrix and The Matrix:Reloaded, must see? YES! Great film? eeehhhhh.... Derivative, but well presented? Probably. Only time will tell what people really think of these.

    1. Re:honestly folks by digismack · · Score: 1

      When I think about "what is real" there are several things that come to my mind. One of my ideas is "making our technology research better technology for us", such as getting a computer system with a basic AI to design a system with a better AI than itself. I would be interested to see if this is possible even. Could we set a 2ghz machine to design a 3 ghz machine and then ahve that machine be built and work on a 4ghz, etc. And if it is possible why aren't we doing this. The concept of having technology better itself without human input was in a book I read as a kid The HitchHiker's Guide to the Universe. Which is pure fiction, or is it? What's to say that we aren't part of a computer simulation being played out with superior coding and hardware, to further the technology of "real" people. I think that would make more sense than the Matrix's idea of AI vs Humans, leading to a war that the AI wins and enslaves the human race to create power for itself because we caused a massive nuclear winter. But then again that would completely screw the storyline, which is why I'm not a Wyschowsky (sp?) brother.

      --
      http://www.hollowdepth.com
  87. Re:mod parent up by KiahZero · · Score: 1
    Word to that. The only people I talked to who were genuinely intrigued by the philosophical questions that the matrix set forth were, to be blunt, stupid and uneducated. I didn't say that to their faces though cause they were also violent gun-loving types. The rest of us dealt with the question of "what is reality" in highschool english class cause we were paying attention when they talked about Plato. We didn't find it that interesting, though, cause there weren't any guns or robots.

    If the matrix was the first thing to make you ponder these types of questions then either you're very young or you just don't think much.

    Assuming your viewpoint is formulated logically, I can come up with plenty of counter-arguments. I will refrain from using myself (there'd be some obvious bias), but I can come up with a few people off the top of my head.

    The one that immediately springs to mind is my brother, an IR major at a prestigious university. He also worked as a gun control advocate. I guess, if you work from a logical point of view, you'll be renouncing your idea that only uneducated, stupid gun-nuts enjoyed the Matrix for more than being the equivalent of pop music.

    The philosophy retold in the Matrix, alone, would be sparse. However, the artful way it is expressed was what made it a good movie. I admit, I have not read as much philosophy as I would like to (I'm more of a mythology buff). However, the Wachowski(sp?) brothers created quite a world, with quality characterization, to retell the philosophy. Speaking of mythology, I feel that the religious undertones and allegory have been neglected in favor of the philosophical interpretations.

    Whatever you think of the movies, the Wachowski brothers put a lot of work into it. There's an absolutely amazing backstory to it. And you know what? I honestly don't care if some of the ideas (Battery critics, I'm looking at you) are impractical, because it didn't break the suspension of disbelief. I hesitate to compare their work to Tolkien's, because it's obviously not on the same level, but their world has the same depth to it to me.

    I don't know. Maybe I'm one of those blunt, stupid, uneducated gun-loving types.

    --
    I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  88. Fifty Tickets to May 14th Pre-Opening-Night Show by pjammer · · Score: 1

    ... is what I have in my hot little hands.

    Evidence: photo of all fifty pre-opening night tickets.

    Me and my friends will be the absolute first people in the SF Bay Area to see The Matrix: Reloaded ... how's THAT for geek bragging rights? ;)

  89. There is no review by Nevrar · · Score: 1

    Spoon boy: Do not try and avoid reading the review. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
    Neo: What truth?
    Spoon boy: There is no review.
    Neo: There is no review?
    Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the review that disappears, it is only yourself.

    --
    Nevrar
  90. Subtle... by podperson · · Score: 1

    "subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality"

    You mean the boring adolescent half-understood existentialist crap between the action scenes? Well, the oracle at least was funny.

    "I'm free. You're not. My reality is real. Yours isn't. Die!"

    Yeah, subtle.

  91. Easy way to defeat Agent Smith.... by titzandkunt · · Score: 1


    1) Set his reference count to zero.

    2) GC him.

    3) ...

    4) Prophecy!

    --
    Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
  92. Its a trilogy so wait for it to be completed first by ixxologic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just like The Lord of the Ring, the matrix IS a trilogy.. it wasnt really ever supposed to be 3 movies but given its success.. it now is.. I think its a bit wrong to judge no 2 as an all out action movie.. even if it is because just as with LOTR.. it really needs to be seen as a whole..when its done.. so.. its an important chapter in the book.. Didnt anyone notice how actionbased The Two Towers is?...lets not play old senile men with big beards sitting on a chair in the sky and casting used condoms on people until they're done with all 3. ixxo

  93. There is no what? by Beige · · Score: 1

    Trinity wasn't with Neo when he visited the Oracle, and doesn't know about the incident with the spoon. So when they're standing on the top of the lift and Neo suddenly says 'there is no spoon' she must think he's a right nutter. :)

    --
    pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!
  94. That, to you, was a subtle philosophical theme? by kahei · · Score: 1


    Read books. 60s sci-fi would be a good place to start, since that's what the Matrix was a reworking of. Eventually, you can graduate to real books.

    Matrix Reloaded rocks, by the way.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:That, to you, was a subtle philosophical theme? by Erik_Kahl · · Score: 1

      Heinlein is my idol.

      What 60s era sci-fi would you recommend?

      And, are you trying to say that sci-fi books don't qualify as 'real books'?

  95. Reloded is better than the reviewer gives credit by vespazzari · · Score: 2, Informative

    I got to see a exhibitor screening last friday, and, to put it simply, The Matrix Reloded was the first movie that I wanted to watch again immediatly after it ended. The other people I was with also agreed that it was an increadibly good movie, not only for the action (which it seems nobody is debating) but I thought the story was really good also, and brought up some interesting points of discussion. And that alone is light years more than most summer blockbuster films.
    The reviewer seems to be saying that reloaded would be a terrible movie if it were not for its action, I can only think that the reviewer is an idiot, or maybe he just didnt understand the film.
    As I was talking to one of my boss, after the movie, he didnt seem to think that it would do very well (boxoffice wise) because most people would not understand some of the more complex issues that the film touched on.
    There was a lot of reference to the inner workings of computer systems, very vauge references - but they were there none the less. I cannot really elaborate without giving too much away, but I am sure that a lot of the /. crowd will catch on some of the stuff.

    I must say though, do not get discouraged- this is an awesome film! there are also a number of reviews on aint-it-cool-news.com

    --
    "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
  96. You percieve... by Nameles · · Score: 1

    ... that the movie is only action, but in reality, it is not.

  97. Feeding The People by malus · · Score: 1

    OK, so after they free all the minds, and defeat the computers, how are they supposed to feed all these BTU Generators?

  98. The Mirror by wodon · · Score: 2, Funny

    As many fellow British Slashdotters will know, The Daily MIrror is not exactly a bastion of news intellect.
    It is much better than the virtual soft pornography of the Sport but not quite up there with the broadsheets. I am not surprised that the review focuses on the violence and sex scenes rather than whether it is actually a good movie.

    Ill not got off my middle class socialist soapbox and go back to my copy of the Grauniad (sic).

    --
    It's My Tea and I'll Drink it if I Want To!
  99. So tell us... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... how do you choose which movies to watch?

    There are few possibilites:

    a)Believe the propaganda, I mean, advertisment.
    b)Believe critics (If you read 5 critics and all say a movie is crap, what gives?).
    c)Believe your friends (but they believed a or b above).

    So a is self interestedand as such completely untrustable, c is a or b on disguise.

    You are left with the critics only. If you read only one, shame on you, if you read several different opinions then you may be closer to the truth.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:So tell us... by Rhone · · Score: 1

      And (to add a point, not to disagree with you) the important thing about reading critics isn't accepting the critic's judgment about the movie, but using the critic's description of the movie to figure out whether it's the type of movie _you_ would like--regardless of whether or not the critic enjoyed it.

      I've often read critics and thought "Yeah, it wasn't what _you_ were looking for, but I can enjoy that for what it is instead of wishing they did it your way," or "You might have appreciated the artistic value of that, but it would probably bore me to tears."

      I'm usually right.

  100. Philosophical? Pull the other one! by GCU+Friendly+Fire · · Score: 1
    What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality.

    Whilst I found the original movie fun to watch and fully expect to enjoy the others in due course, I really didn't see it as anything more than a rather pretentious action movie. Look at the two main premises:

    • that computers use humans as a power source. Why? Wouldn't soy beans or yeast be more efficient?
    • that rather than simply keep humans drugged and unconscious, the computers feed a complex virtual reality to the minds of the humans

    This is even lamer than the plot of Speed. How anybody could see philosophical implications in such idiocies is one of the real mysteries of the Matrix phenomenon. The writers simply lifted some of the mumbo jumbo from Californian zen and pumped it into an action movie--it isn't even the first time that has been done.

  101. subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve by noogle · · Score: 1
    reality?

    This has to be a troll right?

    --

    I'm smarter than the average bear.

  102. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by noogle · · Score: 1

    The Matrix Reloads YOU!

    --

    I'm smarter than the average bear.

  103. Re:Philosophical? Pull the other one! by xutopia · · Score: 1

    Remember what agent Smith says to Morpheus and Neo? We had created machines that were intelligent and had feelings and we made them our servants. Because they had feelings and were intelligent machines they also had an ego that was satisfied by our subjection. Sure they could have used nuclear power or something more efficient and just killed us all, but they are sick minded machines that got satisfaction out of our subversion.

  104. What I liked about the first one.... by MortisUmbra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Was exactly what makes me NOT leary of the second one. So many people I know thought it was nothing more than an action flick....never the wiser in regards to the REAL message.

    So I for one won;t be worried until I see it. I don't trust critics enough to even come close to worrying about a review like this.

    --

    "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
  105. Re: The Art of BS'ing by benzapp · · Score: 1

    Then perhaps you haven't read enough western philosophy? The father of "modern" philosophy, Plato, believed that the world we see is only an incomplete projection from a world of ideas. His most famous example of this is the cave analogy, where the people in the cave only see the shadows of things in front of the cave entrance, and believe what they see in front of them is all there is.

    First of all, its an allegory not an analogy. I will leave it to you to look up the difference, but it is decidedly not an analogy. Secondly, your post is one of the most hillariously ignorant I have ever read. I realize the art of bullshitting goes a long way in our modern society, but you are deluding yourself. Better becareful, pathalogical liars always get caught.

    Further, you obviously have never read The Republic. That particular speech has absolutely nothing to do with this eastern concept of an illusory world. In fact, it is referring to the very concept of which I am speaking (enslaving the minds of men).

    The Republic is a book about how to create the perfect society, perfect in the eyes of Plato. The allegory of the cave occurs in the chapter Warped Minds, Warped Societies, IIRC. That should give you a hint as to its purpose. The allegory is purely to show how it is possible to teach a man that the world is not as it seems. This, and other allegories ultimately lead up to Plato's concept of education of warrior/philosopher classes. But this barbaric method of "education" of the prisoner in the cave, is the way to train the lowest worker class. If you raise a man from birth so that he cannot see the real world, he will come to accept what you show him. Of course, when you take the allegory out of context (like what is done in intro books) it is easy to make the mistake you have done...

    The Republic outlines a way to achieve the very society we have today, one where the state by way of schools creates a stratified society, with each class raisd to WANT to perform their duty. The man in the cave, deprived of the real world, knows no differently he doesn't WANT anything different. This is the feat our modern educational system has achieved today. The Republic was the greatest influence on the late 19th century social engineers.

    Rene Descartes pondered what we can tell for sure about the world around us. His famous conclusion was "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). He meant, that one person may be just tormented by some demon who feeds him sensory information, but by thinking, the person can know for sure that he exists, and only that.

    Thanks for that translation of one of the most over used phrases in history. You are so smart. I will be honest, anyone who needs to ponder their very existence is hardly a man... Rene Descartes was simply a Christian, uncertain in his faith, and needed to spend years answering these ridiculous questions on existence. For the most part, he is an abberation. Personally, I find him to be a snivelling fool, ultimately irrevelant to the world in which I live. He is the prime example of Christian narcissism.

    I think your claim that western philosophy doesn't discuss the reality of the world is false. Reading a few books by Nietzsche doesn't make anyone a philosopher. I would recommend an exellent book "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder as an introduction to the basics of western philosophy.

    You, who do not even know the basics of the republic, telling me to read a introduction to philosophy? It seems to me friend, that if all you know about philosophy is the allegory of the cave and cogito, ergo sum you have done nothing but read introductions. Perhaps you should start reading the originals.

    And, indeed, if the ideas you mention are the extent of your knowledge.. most of Nietzsche will not make sense to you. His writings are very much commentaries on all preceding philosophy, literature, and art.

    The only respected "introduction" to philosophy is Bertrand Russell's

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  106. Be careful what you wish for... by Bedevere · · Score: 1
    Sounds like the Wachowski borthers have gone for an all out action movie which is a shame if true. What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality.

    A review in the Hollywood reporter suggests that there will be more than enough philisophical debate (which they claim stops, not motivates the plot) along with trite, repetitive action.

    Let's just hope it turns out better than this review suggests.

  107. No, Not First Post by Icephreak1 · · Score: 1

    London Daily Mirror thinks they're the first to review Reloaded. I'm thinking Time Magazine beat them to it.

    - IP

  108. 2+2= ?? by hoytt · · Score: 1

    Who is to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is not itself a deception

    It is. Every kid knows 2 + 2 = 10. In my base 4 universe anyway.

  109. plate? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    Remember when the Oracle told Neo that he'd stay up late wondering about what would happen if she hadn't warned him about dropping the plate?

    There is no plate. Nor spoon. But there was a vase.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  110. neo by policy11 · · Score: 1

    would have been better played by christian bale imo

  111. The Matrix is cursed? by orim · · Score: 1

    "MANY believe The Matrix is cursed. In August 2001 pop star Aaliyah, who had been cast in a supporting role, was killed in a plane crash."

    Doesn't it take more than one occurence to proclaim something cursed? Jackie Chan broke just about every bone in his body, but you've never heard let's say "Rush Hour" being called "cursed," have you?

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  112. How does that benefit the machines? by ohboy-sleep · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the whole reasoning behind that is circular.

    Why do they keep humans alive and plug wires into their brains?
    To use their brains to run the Matrix.

    Why are they running the Matrix?
    To keep humans sedated and prevent them from revolting.

    Seems to me the best thing for the machines to do is just kill off all the humans and prevent any chance of revolution.

    1. Re:How does that benefit the machines? by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Seems to me the best thing for the machines to do is just kill
      > off all the humans and prevent any chance of revolution.

      From what I've seen from Animatrix, the machines seem to be somewhat ethical in nature. They may not want to exterminate the Humans. They may, in fact, think that the Matrix is the only solution to getting Humans and machines to coexist peacefully.

      And it is a good solution, especially if you think like Joey Pants.

      -JC

    2. Re:How does that benefit the machines? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > just kill off all the humans and prevent any chance of revolution.

      And therefore end their own lives, since they will have no energy.

  113. one Smith, then eight, then 24 and finally 100...? by GojiraDeMonstah · · Score: 1

    Would have been cooler if they'd kept it powers of 2.

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
  114. Highlander all over again by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

    It appears my worst fears have come true. All that remains is to change my sig.

  115. Another important thing about the Matrix Reloaded by master_p · · Score: 1

    Beyond the philoshophical underpinnings of the movie, another subject was not touched by slashdotters: the technology behind filming it.

    The burly brawl scene is entirely digital. Neo, in this scene, is a 3d model that matches 100% reality. Does this spell the end of actors as we know them ? will people be totally replaced by digital avatars ?

    It's funny that a movie that talks about the liberation of man from machine enslavement actually leads towards it.

  116. Let's poll for it... by madgeorge · · Score: 1
    How about some perspective?

    The Matrix was:
    a) A movie with interesting philosophical underpinnings
    b) Aurally and visually breath-taking
    c) A philosophical treatise published for the academic community
    d) Both A and B
    e) The shocking biography of Cowboy Neal

    --madgeorge

  117. I already think about that stuff. by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

    If by philosophy you mean the sort of thoughts you have when you get stoned and are fascinated by the Winamp visualization plugins, then I'll agree.

    Sorry, but my brother and I have already discussed the fact that, yes, we have these questions in our heads under normal circumstances.

    A related point of discussion involves color. Let's say I see a blue sphere. Now I see it through your eyes; Does it still look blue to me? Or does it look green, or orange, or something I wouldn't be able to conceive of without experiencing it?

    It's a moot point, since it's still blue by the wavelength definition, but it is interesting to think about. The topic of discussion may even have applications in preparing people for vision implants.

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  118. Re:Advertising for The Matrix Reloaded has been aw by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I don't see they why they are pimping it so badly.

    Because it's Hollywood. If giving it all away is going to make 10 more people come see it, that's box office revenue they want. They don't care if they ruin it for you - you're going to see it anyway.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  119. Here's an idea--actually read it by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    I love when people post something misinformed. It's easier to deal with them.

    Did you even read it? Harry didn't review the movie. It was sent in by someone who saw the first screener of the movie.

    AICN had the first Matrix Reloaded review. And then added more and more throughout the week. Slashdot is claiming this is the first one when AICN has had at least seven up for a week now.

    Next.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  120. Re:Another important thing about the Matrix Reload by pressman · · Score: 1

    No, digital avatars will never replace actors. I don't care how advanced technology gets, digitally animated characters will not replace real actors. You still need voice talent and that requires a good actor. Why pay for the voice and then spend a gazillion dollars animating that person when you could way more cheaply put a camera with film in front of the actor and have them act.

    --
    Pooty tweet
  121. Good grief... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    Philisophical...seperation...alagory...

    If there's one thing that irritates me, it's pseudo-intellectual wankers who can't even spell the verbal diarrhoea being poured forth. Sheesh, people...if you're that clever, erudite, and well-read, you should at least be able to find the odd dictionary around the house.

  122. Re:Action Movie For Simpletons by Kredal · · Score: 1

    In My Humble Opinion
    Lord of the Rings
    The Fellowship of the Ring
    The Two Towers
    Modus Operandi
    Peter Jackson
    Sublimely Inject
    J.R.R. Tolkien
    Action, Dialog, or Acting
    The Matrix Reloaded
    Concerned Pending Litigation
    Off The Cuff
    The Matrix (part 1)
    Tantamount
    Comparing In Transience
    Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
    Attack of the Clones
    All Farrely Brothers
    Peter Jackson
    Rod Serling
    Only The Few: Resident Terror
    Laughing Out Loud
    Bring Your Action Senses
    Repair, React, Reconnect, Recover: Operation Opression
    Before Finding Sara, Ask Sister Sweetly
    K39-Operational Pacification Killer
    Prince Jazzy Jeff
    Simple Daylight Diary/Just Under Par

    Whew, that's a lot of acronyms. So how many did I get right? (:

    --
    Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  123. Re:You spelled 'diarrhea' wrong...retard by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    Try plugging it into an on-line dictionary, idiot. Diarrhea is the commonly used American spelling; diarrhoea is an acceptable alternative which is usually prevalent in other English-speaking nations.

  124. billy zane.. by crashx99 · · Score: 1

    He would have been a million times better as Neo than Keanu, although i don't have a problem with Keanu too much, but I would have expected someone with more.... expression, like B.Z. to play the role, and it would have helped out his career.

  125. Matrix wasn't Keanu's shining moment... by LionMage · · Score: 1

    ...although his role as Neo was certainly one of his best. No, I think Keanu's shining moment was his role as Prince Siddhartha in the movie Little Buddha. I heartily recommend that anyone who cares at all about good film see that movie! It still makes me cry, years later.

    I have a copy on laserdisc, and I break it out about once a year.

    And thankfully, he avoids sounding like a surfer dude. The last thing you need in a film like Little Buddha is to have a religious icon like The Buddha saying "Whoa!" when he attains enlightenment.

  126. Re:A review I shall not read by senrik · · Score: 1

    ~Neo always seemed the creepy necropheliac type to me.

    Wrong Movie. That was "My Own Private Idaho"

    --
    "the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
  127. Nooo by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Nothing can enlighten you unless you look for enlightenment.

    There are many philosophical questions in the matrix:
    Is reality more then your perception? can machine be truly intelegent, or just have a wide set of parameters? Do people have a destiny, or do they have free will? is it free will if it has been manuipulated? If I say don't worry about the vase, and that causes you to turn around and thus break the vase, was that free will? destiny? Can you tell someone there destiny and strill have them achieve it?

    The path to enightment is all around, you have but to see.

    I used to be a philosophy student, but then I learned the questions philosophers ask most:
    "You want fries with that?"
    thats my joke, I own the copyright.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  128. Re:Another important thing about the Matrix Reload by ChiperSoft · · Score: 1

    The bodies were all digitally created, but the facial features were all recorded from the real actor performances. There's an article about it in the latest Wired. You will always need an actor, if anything for the original model, and for voice acting. Also keep in mind that for basic scenes it's still cheaper, both in time and in money, to use mechanical effects and real actors. Something like this is only necessary when practical effects aren't feasible.

  129. ...have to see for ourselves, but the First One... by dimmerLight · · Score: 1

    They say art is in the eye of the beholder - thats where the First Matrix struck. I just wonder how many of you just sat and said wow, THAT may-be saying it all, huh. this is it. the Matrix, the Oracle, The Blue Pill, the Agent...somehow all fits together, in a weird way maps our own experiences... Great Characters. Only the machines seemed to be week devils - they looked scary, but not too believable in da grand schemes of the Matrix. I wished to see that part better developed in the second movie. Aliens, Arthur C. Clarke, anything but kung-fu, please. And ...on a more personal note, I thought the Matrix was a bit rip-off on the Ghost in the Shell...with the running black/green cypher and all. Anyway, It's not the tech-mech and the fu, it's not the technology, it's not the tool, it's the content. I've invested so many emotions in this, better be good.

  130. Oh for fuck's sake. by mad_clown · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is for those of you who're sitting in front of your computer screens waxing eloquent about the profound subtleties (or lack thereof) that may or may not, according to the hallowed body of work left behind by such intellectual titans as Nitschze, Kierkegaard, Descartes, and Plato (hint: namedropping "The Cave" doesn't make you sound cool or particularly educated) be embodied in The Matrix: please, for the love of God, get over yourselves. It's a fucking movie. If The Matrix is so intellectually beneath you, then don't see it. Go read "The Birth of Tragedy" or something in a coffeehouse, smoke some cloves, and wear a beret or something. Because, and I can't stress this enough:

    THE MATRIX IS JUST A MOVIE.

    Thank you and good night.

    --
    "Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
  131. Last Post! by GQuon · · Score: 1

    Last Post!
    (Let's see if I get away with that.)

    I'll just add that what is most important to me is a good story. I love effects as well, but without a good, funny, sad or crazy story, it's just another FX project or bad fanfilm.
    I was thought the Matrix pretty good, allthough I wasn't "blown away". It was good science fiction - with invented technology - not just Skiffy or space opera.

    Some of my fellow MCSc students saw this film in he 0:02 AM screening last night. They were impressed. So I'm watching it soon. After my exams I think.
    I hope I get to find out why the AIs keep the humans around.
    Is it because the fusion reactors are unreliable and they need us as an un-interruptable power supply?
    Is it because they get some kind of satisfaction from using us "like" we used them?
    When I watched the first of those Matrix shorts, I thought "Ha! Robots are not people!". Am I a bigot?

    The logical end to this technofear-fest is that humans and robots (silicates?) make peace. Ho hum.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!