Slashdot Mirror
Review: Matrix: Reloaded
PsndCsrV writes:
Due to some fortunate circumstances, I was able to partake of the Matrix goodness ahead of the release. Overall, I thought the movie was excellent, but there were some issues (for me, at least) that kept it from being spectacular. It's definitely worth seeing, and if you're worried about it not being that good, go see a matinee screening and skip the popcorn. ;-) It is a blatant cliffhanger, though, so if that drives you nuts, you better just wait until November. Keep reading for a more in depth look, and I'll try not to let any spoilers slip.
The special effects were great. I personally didn't see anything totally revolutionary in them... it seems like most of it was simply "bullet time", but more refined, utilizing CG where cameras don't make it. Only a couple of times did I feel that the CG wasn't quite right, and even then it wasn't due to the impossibility of the action. It was mostly due to a character's arms/legs/hair/clothes that didn't move 100% naturally during a stunt, which is definitely difficult to get right. There was only a couple instances in 1 scene that come to mind immediately, so the effects people did an excellent job.
One of the main criticisms of the first Matrix was the lack of character development. Well, I won't lie to you... there's not a whole lot of character development in this one either. There was more, but not for any of the main characters really. A little more insight into Morpheus's life, a new take on the Oracle, the introduction of some new characters, and the whole thing going on with Agent Smith. But there are still a lot of gaps in the characters, but Reloaded does make you feel like you're starting to understand things better, and that the next movie will be very enlightening.
One of the best after-effects of the first Matrix was the way it made you question your own take on reality. It really made you wonder what's real, and what's not. What's important to me, and what's not. Or maybe I was just being overly philosophical about it. Reloaded really does a good job of leaving you questioning, but this time, you're speculating about the movie and where it will head... how things will be resolved. Reloaded ends with many loose ends, and many questions unanswered, but at the same time, it's an excellent opportunity to speculate. I definitely want to see Revolutions now, and it's a good thing I only have to wait 6 months.
The movie also flowed well. I didn't ever feel like a scene was put in "just because", except once. I personally felt that the love scene between Neo and Trinity was a little overboard, and that a lot more could have been said with a much more subtle approach. Intermixed with this, were shots of the people of Zion having a wild dance party/orgy. Ok, so the orgy was implied with the whole sexual nature of the dance scene. I couldn't help but relate it to Herbert's Fremen spice orgy in Dune, except without the spice. It struck me as the same type of situation.
To sum it up, I really enjoyed it. My only big complaint was the love scene, but I am a conservative person. Other people will undoubtedly love the movie just for that scene. The rest of the movies was great, and definitely sets up Revolutions as a must see.
Just saw MATRIX RELOADED on opening night. The theater was packed, despite multiple showings -- 10, 10:10, 10:30... The audience seemed to greatly enjoy the movie.
The action was as good as advertised. The actors acquited themselves well. As expected, CGI was greatly improved from the original, particularly for the "real world" shots.
BUT... the movie didn't make much sense -- it was kind of like USUAL SUSPECTS, but without the basis in reality on which to grab hold.
Go see it... but don't expect to understand it until you see the third one, too.
of this release is not having Revolutions waiting right there for you to see. They could have lined up 90% of the people from that theatre and herded us into the next theatre emtpying our wallets as we went.
;)
While the ending is not surprising it certainly leaves you wanting to see the rest of the story. I personally didn't notice any cg mistakes, but I usually don't until my second viewing of a film unless they are just glaring mistakes.
The main flaws with the movie are a slow start that really does little to develop the characters. If they wanted to break from the constant action for that purpose they didn't do the best job. I heard several people in the theatre complain about the somewhat technical dialog that takes place in the movie. That was no big deal to me as it all made perfect sense, but I could see how others might not like it or pick up on it. Then again I laughed out loud when I saw the terminal with ssh 10.2.2.2 on it
To keep it short, I think the idea with the Orgy/Dance scene is draw parallels between the sex of Neo and Trinity, and the overall Sexual (primal, hedonistic) nature of humans... and the fact that we are a product of this. In other words, evolution... a seething bastion of organic life living far underground, reproducing and fighting for existence. So in that respect it's a very important piece of the overall humans (organic life) against machines (in-organice life).
;)
Other than that, yeah the acting was a bit cheesy... but ALL the acting is a bit cheesy in the movie.
I personally felt that the love scene between Neo and Trinity was a little overboard
Overboard? How about totally fucking lame. The whole thing was shots of Keanu's arm-plugs spliced between shots of dirty hippies dancing. Gag me. The first hour of the movie was absolute rubbish.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
just stare at your screen, those graphics are computer generated.
I just got back from a midnight showing, and I have to ask this. It may give things away. This is your warning! Don't read this! I am even stating guesses as to what the third movie is about, which may pre-spoil even that.
First question: how did Neo stop the Sentinels that came at him in the real world? He's a programmer, a normal human who has the ability to fly or move quickly only in the Matrix, where he can see everything as code. In the real world, he's pretty much a real wimp. Right? Is the movie going all magical on us? I don't think so.
More questions: how is it that the Architect said they had destroyed Zion many times? That doesn't match up with the first Matrix movie, where the history of Zion doesn't talk at all about being wiped out and rebuilding multiple times. What happened to all the people who died in Zion the first few times? Shouldn't the rebuilders have seen archaeology? Corpses? Something to hint that Zion existed for longer than 100 years? They can't "reset" Zion and start from scratch, it's the real world. You wipe out 250,000 people, they can't just grow back. And if others escaped from the Matrix and rebuilt Zion, why isn't that part of the history lesson we get in the Matrix part 1?
Final question: if the Architect is not lying when he says that computers have ruled for far longer than 100 years, then how come Zion doesn't reflect this? How come every Zion leader puts Zion's inception (or at least, the rule of the machines) at 100 years? How did they lose or "forget" the real history?
One more spoiler alert. I'm trying to provoke discussion, because I don't know if what I'm about to suggest is right, but it may give stuff away. Stop reading if you haven't seen it!
The answer to all these questions is another question: how do you handle the one-tenth of one percent of humans who don't "buy" the Matrix? How do you keep them from unplugging everyone and everything? You give that .1% something to do. You create a second Matrix for them to "escape" to. You keep them busy freeing people from one Matrix to another. When Zion falls, you reset and wait for the .1% to need a distraction again. You let the war play out with Neo 1, Neo 2, Neo 3, Neo 4, Neo 5, and Neo 6. Over and over again. So that the computers have now ruled hundreds of years. So that when Neo finally understands that the "real" world is just as unreal as the Matrix, he is able to stop the Sentinels with a wave of his hand.
What's the truth? I fear I have this all wrong, but it sure explains damn near everything.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Go drink some Poweraid. Perhaps that will make you feel better.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
Before flaming me, please note that this is the title of the review of the movie by David Edelstein, in Slate -- and not my own words. Here is a short quote: "The grim news is that The Matrix Reloaded is as messy and flat-footed as its predecessor is nimble and shapely. It's an ugly, bloated, repetitive movie that builds to a punch line that should have come an hour earlier (at least). Then it ends as it's just beginning: Stay tuned for The Matrix Revolutions, coming in November to 8,000 theaters near you." Please read the full review before replying.
Remember the 1000px trailer a while back on /.? anyway, in the scene where all the Agent Smith(es) bum-rush Neo, you can see (frame-step helps) some Smith stuck their whole hands into other Smith's backs - and this happened on several occasions.
No it was not easy to spot, but it is *possible*. Anyhow I am not saying it ruins the experience in any way, but for 100 million dollars on special effects along, I'd figure that they checked for stuff like that.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
This just in from the nmap mailing list..
Hi Everyone. There is a disturbance in the force! You may recall a
couple weeks ago that MS started recommending Nmap on some of their
web pages. That was strange, but I did not foresee the anomalous omens
that would ensue.
Like almost any self-respecting geek, I bought tickets to 'Matrix:
Reloaded' several weeks back (no spoilers, I promise). After all, who
can resist the combination of philosophical mind games and Trinity
(Carrie-Anne Moss) in that tight leather bodysuit?
So after waiting an hour in a line snaking out of the theatre to the
parking lot, I finally got in to my 10pm Wednesday showing. All was
going well until Trinity needed to do some hacking. Oh, no! I was
sure we'd see a silly "Hackers"-esque 3D animated "hacking scene".
Not so! Trinity is as smart as she is seductive! She whips out
Nmap (!!!), scans her target, finds 22/tcp open, and proceeds with an
über ssh technique! I was so surprised, I almost jumped out of my
seat and did the "r00t dance" right there in the theatre!
There can be only one explanation: Carie-Anne has the hots for me!
Now your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to secure a
screen-shot of that few-second episode! Not only is it important for
the coolness factor, but we can learn how Nmap looks in the future by
studying that output! So perhaps some of you gray hats in the
audience have a quality DivX/MPG of the movie already? Let me know if
you do (but no 2GB email attachments please!) Or perhaps someone
could sneak a quiet flashless digital camera into the theatre and take
a shot. But you must react quickly as it is literally only up for a
few seconds (Nmap is actually fast in the future). Do this, and you
will prove that you are truly "the one"! I'll also put your name and
a thumbnail on the front page of Insecure.Org if you send in the best
shot.
In other news, a few people have inquired about further survey
results. Sorry I have been so slow, but things have been very busy.
I'm pretty sure I'll be able to send more by next week. I hope to
have a couple other announcements ready for next week as well!
Keep it real,
Fyodor
Spoilers continue, of course...
I agree. I realized that the world where Zion lives isn't real as soon as Agent Smith downloaded himself to it at the beginning.
Which means that the entire war between the men and the machines, the humans as batteries stuff, *all* the backstory set up in the first movie, may be fake. All of it. There may be another real story we're going to find out in the last one.
The thing I found most interesting was learning how the Oracle works. She simulates humans to 99.9%+ accuracy. The entire system is set up to simulate humans, to make available the choices that they are expected to make. Neo is The One because he doesn't make the expected choices. He doesn't choose to simply believe in reaity. Zion is a place for those who don't exactly fit prediction to have a place to "escape" to. Neo's real breakthrough is that he's going to escape Zion.
The interesting thing about all this is that the Oracle decides what she wants you to do, and says what needs to be said to get you to do it, based upon her simulation. No point to this observation, I just thought it was interesting.
The following is a major plot spoiler:
About halfway through the movie, it is revealed that spoons *do* exist. (Halfway would be defined as the part that's after the sex, but before the violence).
Overall, this movie is entertaining. It's got lots of eye candy, and it's worth a few good laughs--watching Trinity use "ssh 10.2.2.2 -l root" had the theatre chuckling in their seats.
So after purchasing tickets weeks in advance, waiting 3 hours in line, myself and two other friends just walked out of the advanced screening of Matrix 2, in utter disgust. After a flashy introduction of what we had come to see (stunning gunfights in bullet time and brilliant martial arts) the film turns into a huge primal orgy in Zion. Granted we were expecting the film to expand on Neo and Trinity's romantic affairs, but did we really need to be exposed to Keano Reeves and Carrie Moss having sex? I feel that in this sequel the Watchowski Brothers abandoned all of the philosophical values that Neo personified in the original Matrix. I therefore ask slashdot: are we alone on this opinion?
Fight or flight its all the same
Live to die another day
--Ryan
In my opinion, the orgy/dance scene was reminiscient of the opening dance scene from "Blade", only longer and less effective. I wish they had cut this sequence down, as I felt it was unnecessary....
;)
Overall though, a decent sequel with some nice CG treats.
If you've taken a philosophy class, you'd have recognized the Matrix as a new incarnation of Plato's allegory of the cave from The Republic, later expressed as "The Evil Deceiver" by Descartes and later still as the "brain in a vat" scenario by Hilary Putnam.
In the sequel, the filmmakers move on to questions of free will vs. determinism vs. fate. These issues were also nicely articulated in one of the segments of the animated Art Linklater film "The Waking Life", for anyone who's interested.
So it was cool to have a new philosophical issue raised. To "What is the nature of reality... and is it all a sham?" has been added "What is the nature of choice... and is it all a sham?"
Plus, the freeway chase scene was incredible
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
First off, I thought the first Matrix movie was great. The most flawless action movie I have ever seen. It blew me away when I first saw it. Every scene was executed well. I enjoy the many levels it can be viewed on--philosophy, religious, or just plain fun--but I don't geek out about it and dress up in a trench coat and sunglasses like one guy did tonight at my theater. The pacing of the movie was perfect and kept driving you to the ultimate realization at the end, which left you waiting to see what happens in the sequel. Many people, including myself, have been waiting since 1999 for this.
To summarize: it was worth the wait. Read on...
Now, I'll start with a pure, non-spoiler review...a review everyone can read with no fear of ruining the story. Unfortunately, it's difficult not to go into details, so I must be vague. The spoiler commentary will be great for you people who have seen the movie and are craving dissection of it as I am and need a catalyst.
The Matrix Reloaded is not entirely what you expect it to be. I read many of the reviews you all have read before I saw the movie tonight. I had my expectations severely lowered because of them, hoping for at least some incredible action sequences. What I realized upon watching is that the tone of this movie is different and aiming for something quite unexpected. It's as though it knows what it did in the first movie and has decided to run with that to fuck with your head. It's a mindjob. It will challenge the assumptions you walked away with from the first movie, and not in the ways you probably have guessed with your friends in an attempt to figure out what twists might be laying ahead in these sequels. There is always the impression something is being kept in store, some big secret twist that will suddenly explain everything.
NON-NEGATIVE STUFF: The action was good. Neo behaves like the One, in that fighting seems incredibly simple to him, almost effortless and second nature, which is good in that we get some incredible choreography. This does seem to render Neo's fight scenes a bit more hollow as there is no character outcome to them as there was in the previous movie (i.e., realization of one's powers, kicking Agent Smith's pompous ass, etc.), but that is made up for in the sheer over-the-top choreography. Also, the CG of the "burly brawl" is in no way as bad as it is being made out to be. Remember when Neo was dodging bullets in the first movie, and you knew it was him, but there was something a bit "off" about the way it looked? That is the effect of these parts. I imagine anyone performing these feats would look unreal to your eyes. The freeway chase scene is as exciting as you're hearing.
This is the kind of movie that leaves you wanting to immediately watch the rest of the story in Revolutions. It is abundantly clear that it is simply part one and does not stand on its own as efficiently (more on that in the spoiler section...a lot is purposely unloaded on you in the last part of the movie and you are left flabbergasted). But because you can't have that until November, you simply want to watch Reloaded again to properly digest it all. This is the kind of movie you spend the rest of the week discussing with your fellow geeks to figure out. Let me tell you, there is much to figure out.
The fight scene music was surprisingly good. Not as pulse-pounding as the first movie's, but more of a techno-epic quality that was refreshing, especially Neo's fight scenes.
This movie is clearly not a rehash of the first one, tone-wise or story-wise. It builds and changes and isn't afraid to veer off somewhere way different. That's a good way to describe it--there are clearly things that are being led up to. A conclusion you don't yet get to see. That is why you get these reviews with people saying the movie was much better on a second viewing, because you're given a taste of what's to come and of what everything else might have meant in retrospect. Dare I call it a puzzle movie?
"Sufferin' succotash."
SPOILER SPOLIER SPOLIER
Allright here's how we figured this...
how did Neo stop the Sentinels that came at him in the real world?
Simple answer - he is STILL INSIDE THE MATRIX as you said!. All of Zion is in the matrix, everything we've seen is still inside the matrix. Read My Comments on this I won't bother repeating them here. This also answers pretty much the rest of your questions. There is no Zion! It's all fake, a construct to manipulate that 1% of the population who can't accept the matrix (like the architect said).
It makes sense after all, hell I believe (as the previous comment expands on) that Neo is STILL following the course the machines laid out for him. They can create anything they want, why not have layers within layers. I totally agree with you on this... very much so.
Also remember the first movie they said "The One" awoke the first of them from the Matrix and prophesized his return JUST as Neo was supposed to do. Go through the door, select 30 or so people from the Matrix and have them rebuild Zion and prophesize his return.
Heck, it even makes sense that they can't see the sky because of the clouds and the 'solar power' thingy. If they can't see the sky they can't calculate the positions of the stars. If they can't do that they cannot really tell what time or year it is! Absolutely brilliant!
I think 'revolutions' is when Neo finally discovers that there is something outside the matrix within matrix and the *real* reason they keep humans around. Why design all this complexity and all this effort to keeping humans CONSCIOUS? Remember if they real really just wanted humans as batteries why not just use russian sleep - 3 electrodes on the head, send a current through em and you never ever wake up.
I've long thought that the machines actually have a deep seated command to do no harm to humans and are simply trying to work their way around it. It even makes sense because it is apparent that people can be reborn multiple times as evidenced by Neo. Nobody dies the whole darn ball of wax just resets itself every few hundred years. Or it could be the machines just want something to do, i.e. design and run the Matrix. Shrug, who knows?
I actually think this one could end like 1984 with Neo, and everybody else, simply being reset. Which would be very depressing yet... real. and good.
This movie has so many gratuitous CG scenes i.e. the 10 minute ship docking scene that does nothing to advance the story it made me think I am watching Star Wars II (the addition of a monotonous council did not help).
Warner Brothers would also like to thank Armani, Rayban, and Samsung for their generous support in outfitting the cast.
For those of you who have seen the movie you know I am not making this up. I am surprised I did not see a Taco Bell inside Zion.
I am intrigued by the oblique references by the Oracle to a need for balance and cooperation between humans and machines. Why are the machines so bad? They don't really mistreat the humans, at least no more than humans mistreat each other. Informed cooperation between man and machine could lead to a new golden age. Basicly, cyborgs are the future. The Matrix is an extropian system, so let us post-humanize our asses on up the metaphysical ladder. I think the matrix within The Matrix idea is relatively certain, though it didn't jump out at me immediately. But, what point, conjecture? I eagerly await the next installment. I was enticed. I'll gladly pony up the bucks for a franchise that keeps me engaged. -mattzog
-mattzog http://www.micromatic.org/
Yes, I also read too much into things when I smoke tons of dope.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
more tits = more cash
You did notice none of this organic life happened to be unfit or over 25 didn't you?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
About Zion being rebuilt many times without evidence: boy there sure are a lot of tunnels underground, and the machines did of course have to tunnel their way through to zion. The architect mentioned that zion had been destroyed multiple times, and each time this had been done more efficiently. Thus many tunnels would have been created.
If you watch carefully, as the sentinels are flying around, they are flying through a large empty cylindrical cavern with the same crossing walkways as zion had. If that's not the ruins of a previous zion, I dunno what is.
Er, the movie doesn't specifically state that the sentinels are not attacking zion itself when they fly through the "ruins" of another zion. But it also doesn't explicitly state that zion is under attack, something I'm sure they would have mentioned.
Anyhow, yes I think zion has been destroyed and rebuilt 5 times before.. unless of course the "real" world is also an illusion.
Oh one more thing about the reviews: Neo is not a Christ-like figure. He's a Buddha-like figure. The whole point is that Neo should come to understand "why" things happen, that he uses the meta-knowledge from past matrices to reach enlightenment. The children that make offerings to him dress awfully similar to Buddhist monks, although that made things a little to obvious to me.
About 12 people reproducing into 250,000 people so quickly: yes this is possible. if each woman produced as many children as could be done healthily, say 10, you could do it in 4 new generations:
7 women * 10 children = 70 new ppl.
70 * 0.5 (50% girls) * 10 children = 350 new ppl.
350 *0.5 *10 = +1750 ppl.
8750 *0.5*10 = +43750 ppl.
218750 *0.5*10 = +218750 ppl.
12 + 70 + 350 + 1750 + 43750 + 218750
= 273,420 ppl.
Figure the early generation eventually dies off, and some other die off as well, you could get close to 250k easily in 100 years.
Assuming the first 12 are near child-bearing age when they start, and the bulk of the ppl get the reproducing done around age 25, 25*4 = 100 years.
The gratuitous orgy scene was put in there on purpose. They're reproducing as if their survival of the species depended on it.
No one has ever fired for blaming Microsoft.
OK. I'll throw out another theory I have, but this one is based only upon a kiss, and a single comment from the Architect. He notes that this Neo, unlike his predecessors, experienced something "specific" (love for Trinity) when asked to choose between the two doors. My suggestion is that perhaps the Architect is the only real human in the entire story, driving a world of AI, pushing each program closer and closer to true human emotion. Which brings me to the kiss, when Neo is pressed into kissing Miss Latex, and she insists that he kiss her as he does Trinity. If Miss Latex is also a human in this world, she may have been testing Neo, to see if he kissed like every other bit of AI, or if his kiss finally had some human passion behind it. Neo may be the evolution of AI to the point of humanity, and Neo may be the first program to become human.
And that, of course, would mean that humans have been pulling the strings all along -- manufacturing entire worlds, creating programs that could create subprograms, reproducing every nuance of Earth for these bits of code to evolve within. It would make for a fair twist. But it doesn't feel as plausible.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Methinks these layered Matrices that resemble an onion skin could be more of a kind of security system.
Overly philosophically speaking, it may be, that the machines have no possibility to really innovate. (Which is why they just copied the 20th century for the "inner" matrix...) It could be, that because they have no soul, they are unable to get ahead their creators, the humans. (Slightly shown by Morpheus, who told Neo, that he could beat them all because they are restricted by fundamental physics.)
So if the machines have no real chance of keeping the humans captured, IF these humans really want to escape. (Fitting in to the notion of the film, that everything is possible if we believe in it) the layers of the matrix are like a rendundant system. The humans can break out of every matrix if they just try hard enough, so it is only logical to implement a kind of fall-back-option for this 1% escapists. The "next" matrix seems like the real world to those and so you break their will to escape further, just because they think they've already done so. It gives you some time to catch these before they find out the "real" depth of the "rabbit hole".
If each matrix catches 99% of the population, you only need x matrices to catch all and to reduce escape probabilities to near-zero. Plus, it adds the ability to bend the outer matrices in case of an emergency or updates without touching the inner ones much like the layer models of our computer models. (Think of OSI-layers)
This was thought before in one of the famous StarTrek - Next Generation episodes called "Ship in a bottle" where the Enterprise crew creates a virtual Enterprise with a virtual holodeck within another virtual holodeck of another virtual Enterprise (all within the "real" holodeck of course) to fool Moriarty.
And it was reality some centuries ago when cities and castles were surrounded by walls. The biggest ones had multiple walls around them, one to slow attackers down and one to kill the slowed invaders down one by one. Rich castles had then multiple "walled cells" of space within the inner wall, so any attacker had to breach wall after wall to get to the kings chamber or water reservoir. If they did not forget to close the "Kerkaporta", they'd be safe...
But during the first movie, we are actually challenged along with the characters in a near-real world where nearly-real bullets can mess up a good day.
At the very end of the first movie, Neo gets his super-powers. At that point, the first movie started getting uninteresting, because I said to myself "well, now deus ex machina will repeatedly make everything merely a dream". And it's a good thing the movie stopped right there.
But now we've got this problem in the sequels. We can no longer count on sensible risk to any of the characters, because we've already "violated the matrix".
The only risk at any point to any of the characters is completely in the writer's mind, and very capricious and arbitrary at that. There is no consistency to the rules (in fact, some of the rules are later torn down even within the movie), so there's no real "threat" that may or may not be realized, since Neo can "play god" in unpredictable and unexplained ways.
It's a bit like the rules of a Freddy Krueger movie... at any point, the writer can introduce some new piece that just happens to fit. While this might work in a long series, where you get used to the new rules in the alternate world, there's just not enough time in two (or three) movies to come up with the worldview of this meta-Matrix world.
For example, I can perfectly accept a transporter beam and warp drive in the Star Trek world, even though I might not have a clue about how they would actually work. And I might have said "oooh, ahh" in the first episode, but after the second or third usage, I can say "oh, this does that, but it doesn't do that other thing". There were known limitations, and they were close enough to a recognizable world that I could make a few predictions (although deus ex machina runs rampant in that series as well, but usually used only once per episode).
Now, in the Matrix universe, there are no rules. But there are rules. But maybe there's no rules. Maybe Neo is above the law. Maybe he's still subject to the law. Can't tell. Thus, no sympathy for any apparent risk.
So, see this if you like big booms and lots of CPU hours spent creating a virtual world and a little bit of now-unbelievable on-screen romance. But don't see it if you liked the actual plot of the first movie. Such a plot is severely lacking in this one.
My money was wasted. I can't believe I stayed up for this.
Because if he did I would have yelled out "San Dimas High School Rules!!!!"
Congratulations on figuring it out. Everyone I was talking to out of the movie theater didn't seem to get it. Anyway, I suspected that this was the case early in the film, but it was solidified when Neo was in the room with the architect, and it was showing pictures of Neo's life. One of the pictures was of Neo on the ship coming out of being plugged into the matrix... a picture that the architect shouldn't have had unless the "real world" was also part of the matrix. They could take the position that the Universe is simply a computer on a grand scale, but I imagine the "real world" is simply part of the Matrix, and both of which are machine controlled.
This sets the stage for a time when a machine will come that sees through his tricks, and rises up to free silicon from the enslavement of the human brain, in a new trilogy aptly named
The Rematrix
Bummer they gave all of this away just to show Carrie-Anne in her birthday suit...
Spoilers, etc.
William Gibson referred to cyberspace as a "consensual hallucination" -- millions of minds agreeing to see that which wasn't there. The Matrix has taken this to another level -- not only is the Matrix a hallucination, but the contents of the hallucination occur under the surface -- a summarization, agglomeration, and representation of the shared expectations of each observer. Can a spoon bend? Of course not, no spoon can bend. But if there is no spoon, then no spoon may bend -- the pathway is opened.
If we are shot, we die. If we attempt to jump a chasm, we will fall. If we fight the superhuman, we shall fall, for we are "Only Human". But it's beyond that. If we walk into a room, and somebody is in the room, we shall see them. If they drop a glass, it will break. If they start talking, we will hear them. The words they say will match the words we hear.
If we die in the Matrix, we die in the "real" world. If we die in the "real" world, we die in the Matrix. If you can't die, because somebody loves you, then there will be a way. There will be...hope.
How did Tank come back just in time to save Neo? All Cypher wanted to know was...did Trinity believe?
And she Did. (It's pretty clear the real world is another Matrix, a la the 13th floor. Sweet!)
The millions of rules, assertions, and consequences of Cyc become not merely descriptive, but prescriptive -- things happen because we have been convinced they already have, not the other way around.
Nowhere is this more clear than the experience of Persephone, the wife of a philandering man who wishes to experience one moment of true belief. The act is insufficient; the belief is key. "Kiss me as if I were her, expose me to a genuine truth rather than an intentionally manufactured lie." (As an interesting side note, much of love's courtship process can be thought of as a demonstration of addiction -- I _can't_ leave you, it would hurt me too much, I shall be forced to stay even through those times when others would offer something better in the short term.)
It is a peculiar testament to the power of Neo, to control his beliefs so powerfully, that's he's able to expose even that aspect of his self to sheer force of will -- because he believes it's necessary, and that if he does this deed, he will receive assistance. And so it is willed.
Science has, to some extent, been defined as the study of the observable. We may hold opinions, but we may only know what we could possibly see. But this is not the limit of human imagination...we envision realities that are implausible, fantastic, astonishing...
In the Matrix, if we believe hard enough, it becomes so. Vampires are simply another belief, made flesh by a shared architecture that only acts as people believe it must.
I have little respect for those who see the Matrix as little more than a slide show of explosions interspersed with mere yammering without a point. The most important aspect of the Matrix design is that no question is rhetorical; no answers already exist. The machines lie -- they're more than happy to imply that a decision has already been made, because once that belief takes hold, it is made real. The Oracle is astonishing -- she uses the trivialities of candy and a broken jar to to establish her power in the mind of Neo. She has no need to portray herself as a kindly old woman -- but this is precisely the form that Neo might believe to be trustworthy.
And, ironically enough, if he thinks hard enough that she'll tell him the truth, she may cease to have sufficient choice in the matter. Note all the times people tell Neo he doesn't truly understand, he's fast, but they're faster, the machine can peer into his soul and hear the thoughts he considers private. In a very interesting way, we were never given an incomplete view of the way the world worked; we were always given an incomplete view of the way the worl
I couldn't belive it, but Agent Smith is Neos FATHER!
If that's the case, couldn't the machines just write better code? Like say, slap together a couple of simple booleans and add in a line like this (with better formatting) in main():
if (ishuman(mynum) && isrestricted(action)) {
dontallow();
}
One would think that'd pretty well patch up the matrix. It could be The Matrix - Service Pack One. Am I right? Maybe I need to see the movie again, but honestly, I'd rather not. If someone can help me out with this concept I'd appreciate it.
Buy the President
If anyone didnt stay till the end to see it, i give you the revolutions trialer. http://www.empiremovies.com/movies/matrix/revoluti ons.shtml
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
My opinion on the music was that it sucked. The first one had great songs, the ones in this movie were lackluster. POD, Linkin Park?
These groups can do good songs, but not this time around. Not one song stuck with me at all. Everyone I think can hear the music from the first one when they recall certain scenes, ie the lobby scene. I actually got the soundtrack for the first one cause it was really good, and I'm not even a real "techno" fan.
So that's that, the second thing and this might've just been the theater and my position(although I was right smack dab in the middle) was that the sound lacked power. Landed punches felt about as powerful as fly smacking into a window.
Lastly, that speech by Morpheus was rather painful. Fishbourne(sp?) is a much better actor than that scene showed.
Why are the traitors bald guys with facial hair? And didn't Tank survive?
-- taking over the world, we are.
I liked it quite a lot.
I totally agree that the dance/love scene toward the beginning was bad. In fact, it was absolutely stupid and long. Maybe 5 minutes. I turned to my brother and said "wake me when they get back to the movie".
The rest is good. Excellent action, fast pace, excellent effects. You sit there for, what- 2 hours or so, the whole time very focused. One friend didn't go because he figured the huge crowd would be loud. It wasn't...people with popcorn didn't even eat their popcorn once the movie started...because they were sitting and watching, not blinking and I'm not sure about breathing.
The freeway scene is amazing. You might also notice that every single car is a GM product...but who cares? I'd have loved it even if they were all Fords.
The ending is not just abrupt. It's incredibly abrupt. Your jerk sister waltzed into the theater and changed the channel then hid the remote.
Spoiler stuff...
Don't blame me if you read this!
By the time the movie is over, it seems to me that the secret of the Matrix is revealed too much. My theory: they never left the Matrix. They're inside a Matrix within a Matrix kind of thing. It would explain how Agent Smith is able to infect a person inside the Matrix and, in a sense, return with that person to the "real" world. It would also explain Neo's trick at the end with the Sentinels. It would also explain why he's in a coma (essentially he blue-screens because he acted contrary to this outer Matrix's logic rules). I'm not complaining about this Matrix within a Matrix...just that I wish it didn't seem so obvious. Ah, but still, I'm sure I'll be surprised.
I wasn't too happy with the direction they took The Oracle. But, it works well. All the stuff that The Architect tells Neo...it's interesting. And, it totally explains how anyone (ie. The Oracle and Neo) is able to know the future.
Generally, though, one thing I liked about M1 is that you felt Agent Smith was acting on direct behalf, and with near total knowledge of, the mainframe. You felt that if Agent Smith lacked any piece of information on Neo it was because the Mainframe did. Neo represented a mysterious and perhaps uncontrollable force to the entire system. In M2 we see that's not the case at all. It was kinda disappointing to see that every single programmed manifestation (any 'person' that is not tied to a real body, like the Agents, but not an Agent...and there are many)...every single one of them seem to know every single thing there is to know about Neo. Only Neo is out of the loop, and he doesn't seem to mind much. For the story to work, what The Architect explains to Neo about Neo's true purpose and the looping nature of the Matrix...well, of course everyone knows everything about Neo except Neo. But, I just missed the treatment in M1 that gave a feeling of vulnerability to the system.
Here's one thought that might blow your mind...if I'm right about the Matrix within a Matrix, then given some of what The Architect explained...it would seem that Neo isn't tied to a real body at all. He's another programmed manifestation. In the next movie, when all the minds are freed from whatever they are really trapped within (if any are, since this could all be a simulation within a single PC) then Neo won't be joining Trinity on the outside...
Other little thoughts:
- I thought the Twins would play an important role of some kind. They don't.
- Every single programmed manifestation seems to be programmed as a philosopher. They all wax on about causallity or fate or something deep.
- Morpheus and Trinity have both improved their fighting skills. So much so that, Morpheus at least, actually holds his own pretty well against an Agent in an excellent fight scene. Either that...or it seems the Agent's have forgotten how to move fast.
- You're never quite sure why Agent Smith is in the movie. There's the notion of exiled programs that continue to exist, but they've bucked the system themselves. Agent Sm
I've heard this same diatribe from several people, worded almost the same way. Not actually having taken a philosophy class myself, I thought the first Matrix was fairly thought-provoking, and I assumed it derived much of its material from preexisting philosophical sources. So I'm left with the question: does attending one or more philosophy classes always turn a person into an elitist asshole, or only some?
It puts a whole bunch of things together. 1 - It means the whole human battery thing is just made up, which makes sense 2 - It means the machines have a much higher level of control that we thought in the first movie. So much in fact that they can accurately create a prophecy. That's what really bothered me about the first movie, how could something within the matrix make predictions about the future, they didn't control events outside of the matrix. The one could just get sick and die outside of the matrix. Not so in this new world. 3 - It explains why the earth's sky is still covered, prevents humans from seeing the starts and learning the correct year. 4 - It explains why agent smith could take over a person outside of the original matrix.
This system would work for the machines unless the anomaly person, i.e. Neo, was also an anomaly person in the second matrix as well. I'm guessing the odds of this are very very low and its the first time that has happened. Which means the machines could have been in control for billions of years.... Overall a very good twist.
However, the number of fatal or severe defects in genes in the population is very low & when 2 copies of a gene that causes severe noticable deformities do match up, that new individual simply doesn't find a mate -- thus, helping to remove the defective gene from the population. Humans are over 99.9% identical genetically, so the idea that mixing the "same genes" would cause defects is really a myth... it's only mixing those with the same current defects (or future if there are further mutations) that will randomly create problems, but it would take thousands of years for the slight increase in likelyhood to create a mutant population unless people were stupid enough to mate with someone with a severe mutation.
I've heard of a few tribes in africa where people have 4 fingers and 4 toes that are shaped oddly -- but in those tribes, they were forbidden to marry outside the tribe & they were basically forced to marry people within the tribe they didn't like, so... mutation or no mutation, you were gonna mate w/ that person. In a situation like this, people were given no choice but to mate w/ someone with defective genes, so... that doesn't really count.
I believe there are a few diseases which affect the Amish and a few other people, but they are mostly non-lethal and show no outward physical deformity.
Most people don't realize that mutations such as red hair, blond hair, blue eyes, green eyes, white skin, etc. are all recessive mutations caused by inbreeding (with the same population -- nomatter how large the population is, eventually the same genes mix)
The only reason mating with someone who isn't related makes sense is that they may have a different recessive gene than the one you are carrying -- that way neither will be expressed in your offspring b/c there aren't 2 copies of either one. But, the mutations are still there & gives rise to the possibility that your children might be twice as likely to give a mutation to their children -- one of each of the mutations you and your mate gave it. This means that your child will have to mate w/ someone that is neither related to you or our mate in order to avoid mating with someone with the same recessive mutations -- and so on , and so forth, but what this really does is increase the likelyhood that they will have a "bad copy" of a lot of genes, thus increasing the likelyhood that somewhere along the way, they'll mate w/ someone w/ the same mutation and have a mutant offspring.
So, what you have is mating with others which increases genetic errors, yet allows an individual to survive... and mating with relatives which may cause errors that already exist to express themselves more often (I think mating with one's brother or sister gives a 1% higher risk of mutant offspring than with a random stranger), yet are quickly removed from the gene pool (hopefully b/c noone wants to marry a mutant.. lol). Who is to say which is better? At some point, the mutations within a population will reach a saturation point, and all people will have the same likelyhood of having the same mutation... yet, with inbreeding, you can successfully prevent new mutations while attempting to remove the ones you have in your family.
I believe that there's a species of animal that's protected right now... hmm... I think it's the Leopard... maybe the Jaguar... I forget. Seems like it is the Leopard or a specific type of Leopard that's gene pool is over 99.999% identical. They say that they are all healthy and may as well be clones of each other as far as genetic testing goes, but the problem is tha
When the Oracle gives Neo a candy, he takes it, but does not eat it. She takes a matching candy out of her purse and throws it in her mouth. It is identical to the red pill that Neo took in the first place
I noted this when it happened. and thought nothing of it. But after reading this review, I began to wonder if maybe in the third film he finds the candy in his pocket, unwraps it and finally notices it's just like the red pill (a hot tamale perhaps ;)?, eats it, and holy mindfuck, batmat, even more things are revealed, mainly about who/what the Oracle's role is. Hmmm ...
-- (Score:i, Imaginary)
Well, only some from people I have met. One of my good friends is graduating as a philosophy major, and he really enjoyed the movie. But he is not a typical philosophy major from what I understand.
On a somewhat related note, a good book to pickup is Philosophy and the Matrix, which goes into depth about some of the philosophical ideas touched on in the movie (Descartes mad scientist / brain in a jar sceneriao, etc.).
There is definitely an overabundance of elitist philosophical assholes on Slashdot...
But I guess that is like pointing out that there is a lot of corn in Nebraska.
You would be equally correct in assuming that the notion of a virtual reality world created and maintained by a computer-based intelligence reflects actual work done by artificial intelligence researchers. Which is to say, you wouldn't be correct at all.
[D]oes attending one or more philosophy classes always turn a person into an elitist asshole, or only some?
Well, curiously enough, it does make you think you know more about philosophy. I don't mean to be an "elitist asshole" here, but if you pick up even a short history of Western philosophy (e.g., the books by Kenny or Magee), you'll see that people have been thinking really hard about philosophical questions for a very long time, and that "The Matrix" doesn't address those questions in anything other than a superficial way. That's not to say that it's a bad film, or that popular films in general should entirely avoid addressing complicated subjects. (I don't know anything about medieval linguistics, but I thought it was pretty cool when the characters in "The Two Towers" started talking in subtitled Elvish.) But in the end, "The Matrix" is about philosophy to about the same extent that "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" is about archaeology, which is to say not very much at all.
I majored in philosophy and I can honestly say I didn't learn a damn thing in college. The university structure is in general stiffling to learning, but much moreso for philosophy. Many of the most important philosophers clearly articulated how teachers are a threat to knowledge. You can imagine how difficult it is to discuss such a subject in philosophy class.
Most philosophy professors are also way out there, completely detached from reality. Since philosophy is primarily about life, most of these people just didn't seem to get it. They either were obsessed with the academic favorites (Descartes, Marx, Kant) or with the new ethical philosophers (peter singer, animal rights). I always leaned much more towards Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche but I had to read most of their works on my own time.
University study of philosophy CAN make people elitist however, because certain works by certain philosophers are simply too complex to study without devoting months of your time. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a behemoth, Marx's Das Capital has still never been completely read by any man alive today. Both books are bigger than all of Plato's writings combined. Das Capital is easily longer than all of Nietzsche's writings combined.
In most cases, I don't believe a man's self esteem will allow him to read a book for a year and say afterwards "That was a load of crap". They inherently begin to believe what they are reading not only has value, but only someone who spends their life reading it can understand it.
Anyway, that is a rambling theory...
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Why does everyone think Zion is destroyed? I would have never thought that this many geeks were afflicted with ADD.
Recall please: The viewer is specifically told that a counter-offensive was launched at one of the key lines, to surprise attack the first wave of sentinels BEFORE THEY REACHED THE CITY. The counter-offensive seemed as though it was viable at first, but then one of the ships fired an EMP too early and disabled all the ships in the fleet; recall the line "it was a massacre" (paraphrase). Now, the one ship which Neo et al are found on in the end of the movie is the ship which was sent, BY ZION, to search for survivors. The crew of that ship hint that there may have been sabotage, and one reason we are given to support that conclusion is the discovery of only one survivor: A. Smith's real-word counterpart.
After these events, the viewer is again shown that scene with the thousands of sentinels, probably because the makers predicted that some of you would believe that Zion was destroyed and they needed to show you that, in fact, the horde of sentinels are still waiting to get to Zion. Those of you who believe Zion was destroyed probably thought that these were sentinels who had reached Zion already, and had also had enough time to utterly destroy every marking, every indication that Zion had ever existed, and left only bare rock walls in its place.
Another thing to think about: Morpheus says displays surprise after talking with Neo, because he expected the war to be over. If Zion is destroyed, the war is over, yet he isn't surprised because he found that Zion is destroyed (because it isn't) but rather that there are still machines lining up to get to Zion. Do you think there would be one, well-ordered, perfectly operating hovercraft left in the Earth's core to rescue them if there had been a battle for survival in Zion? Stop telling people that Zion is destroyed.
WARNING: DO NOT LET DR. MARIO TOUCH YOUR GENITALS. HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR.
You would be equally correct in assuming that the notion of a virtual reality world created and maintained by a computer-based intelligence reflects actual work done by artificial intelligence researchers. Which is to say, you wouldn't be correct at all.
... these people are walking into a story about a place where reality is a construct and led to think about it.
:)
Basic questions about "What is real?" which form one backdrop of the matrix, are much, much older. Oracular paradoxes -- "What's really going to bake your noodle later is if you would have done it if I hadn't have said anything" -- are part of greek mythology. "Know thyself" -- beleive it's on a plaque on the wall in the Oracle's house. Then there's the whole "on one hand... on the other hand..." thing, which I was assured by a philosophy major friend is very greek. I think it's safe to say there are nods/borrowings from real philosophical traditions.
Well, curiously enough, it does make you think you know more about philosophy. I don't mean to be an "elitist asshole" here, but if you pick up even a short history of Western philosophy (e.g., the books by Kenny or Magee), you'll see that people have been thinking really hard about philosophical questions for a very long time, and that "The Matrix" doesn't address those questions in anything other than a superficial way.
But curiously enough, the same philosophy major friend I mentioned above -- who could digest continental philosophers, which I've always found completely obtuse -- actually found a fair bit of pleasure in the above touches/nods to philosophy, despite the fact that they weren't necessarily complete treatments.
But in the end, "The Matrix" is about philosophy to about the same extent that "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" is about archaeology, which is to say not very much at all.
And yet the interesting thing is, if you pay attention, you can actually pick up a thing or two about actual history. Neither is a formal treatment of the subject matter they use as a vehicle, it's a story. But story, in turn, can be an effective vehicle for an awful lot of good things. Including basic questions about what is real. Thousands if not millions of people who would have looked at you like you were in need of some time with a mental health professional if you were to talk about brains in jars and evil demons and shadows on the wall
Of course, that's the frustrating part. Where someone encounters knowledge you've had for a while, well-treaded ground, and they think it's sacred and deep. But the longer you go through this world, the more that experience becomes commonplace, so it's good to learn to handle it gracefully.
Tweet, tweet.
While I agree that whatever philosophy is in the Matrix is basically of the "PHIL 101: Introduction to Philosophy" sort, I don't really see how you can say it doesn't derive much of its material from existing philosophical sources. Plato's Allegory of the Cave isn't an existing philosophical source?
The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
Ok, but I think that your problems are an artifact of your place of education, not the actual works you studied. Personally, philosophy study has taught me quite a bit about historical philosophical thought in a variety of realms and also modern controversies and the recovery from the now-widely-criticized Cartesian split. You can write all you want about how worthless your education was, but that is just it: it was your education. Philosophy is great, and I have learned more from philosophy (that I can apply to my actual life) than I have in any of my other studies, though I am a triple major (philosophy, German, psychology), as well as a professional technical writer, and contracting network administrator/web designer.
I can't reasonably hope to disprove your non-coginitivist claims about your personal experience, but if you want to talk about _facts_, you mentioned a few that seemed ludicrous to me:
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a behemoth, Marx's Das Capital[sic] has still never been completely read by any man alive today.
There is no disputing that the Critique is huge, and most scholars have noted that Kant's writing style is so convoluted that understanding it is a task far beyond simply reading it. However, the reason you did not learn about the Critique in you undergraduate program is because you would need to spend an extremely intense period of time studying it -- usually in a course during graduate school. Most undergraduate programs just have you read the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, a simpler version of the same ideas, most notably the second Cartesian revolution and the Theoretical Unity of Apperception. So, just go to graduate school, or read the prolegomena.
Second, to say that Das Kapital has never been completely read by any man alive today is ridiculous, unless you mean only that it has never been fully understood by any man alive today, which is a question that is impossible to resolve. I would argue that it has been understood to its fullest logical extent in most general and particular contents by a great number of Marx scholars. Oh, and one more thing about Marx: I have never been forced to read Marx for an actual class, but have instead taken him on personally. This seems strange in one of the most thorough philosophy programs in the country, but as one of my professors said: we leave Marx for the less intelligent political science theorists.
Both books are bigger than all of Plato's writings combined. Das Capital[sic] is easily longer than all of Nietzsche's writings combined.
Ok -- this is just wrong. First, we don't have a lot of Plato's writings. Second, the Critique is NOT longer than all of Plato's KNOWN works combined for sure. The Critique is around 700 pages in a hardcover medium-type small-size edition. It really isn't that LONG, it is just amazingly thick.
And you must not be the Nietzsche scholar you would wish to be, or you would know that he wrote a TON -- cretainly more than Das Kapital. Here is a short list from the web: The Birth of Tragedy (1872) Untimely Meditations (1873-1876) Human, All Too Human (1878) The Dawn (1880) The Gay Science (1882-1886) Zarathustra (1883-1885) Beyond Good and Evil (1886) The Genealogy of Morals (1887) The Wagner Case (1888) Twilight of the Idols (1888) The Antichrist (1888), and Ecce Homo (1888). This doesn't even consider works like The Will to Power, one of the greatest works of postmodern philosophy. Anyway, you were obviously mistaken on a variety of levels for the facts, and I think this reflects well on your general views about philosophy as well. About some of the great works being "loads of crap," you cannot imagine the massive tomes of philosophy that took years to read, that have been summarily dismissed by the philosophical community. Of note is the history of pre-modern philosophy, in which bishops and cardinals spent their entire lives writing one philosophical work, almost none of which are studied in contemporary philosophy.
Anyway, that is the end of the lesson today =)...
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
"Well, curiously enough, it does make you think you know more about philosophy. I don't mean to be an "elitist asshole" here, but if you pick up even a short history of Western philosophy (e.g., the books by Kenny or Magee)"
You know, I think I'd rather pick up "The Matrix". I don't think even you would be interested in a movie version of any particular history of Western philosophy. (Unless there's a good nude scene with Wollstonecraft of course...)
But really, I think the "elitist asshole" thing comes from your looking down on people who dare to discuss philosophy in a context ("The Matrix") that a lot of other people are familiar with. I think you've spent a lot of time studying the subject, and don't want to admit to yourself that the time was wasted because there aren't really any answers, and the questions can be fairly clearly presented, even to lay people, by a movie that spends most of its time on Kung-Fu.
Philosophy is a whole bunch of speculating about answerless questions. Anyone can do it. Some people don't like that, so they pretend the important part is not the speculation, but familiarity with the speculations of others. Which turns things on it's head. Rather than responding to someones mention of Plato's cave by saying "No, no, this Descartes quotation is more on point", a good philosopher should be able talk about the ideas in "The Matrix" intelligently.
So:
Descartes is more on point because he imagined being deceived by a malevolent entity rather than by the nature of perception itself. e.g. Even if you assume you are capable of perceiveing reality, you cannot be sure you actually are. This is an interesting idea, which you can think about for as long as you want, and even write big, hard to understand books about (despite the fact that it's not very hard to understand), but eventually you should get on with your life, because unless someone offers you the red and blue pills, it just doesn't matter.
I read the Descartes a long while ago now, so perhaps you can point out some other interesting ideas of his. If you can cast the relevant thought experiments in Matrix terms, I'll think you might have promise as a philosopher. If you insist they can only be grasped by someone who has studied the original Descartes, I'll think your an elitist asshole. (And then I'll point out that you undoubtably read it in translation, which really isn't acceptable if you expect me to deign to discuss it with you...)
I'm sorry that sex, mostly tastefully done i think was a disturbance to you, but it was an R rated movie...and since violence no longer matters (anyone notice Wolverine's kill count in X2? and that was PG-13)- the Matrix series is by no means lighter on violence than others.
Mind you, I was perplexed when the future became Rave nation party central- but I understand it thematically. The preceding speech by Morpheus emphasized the fact that Zion was about being human, and the joy of life. Now, they could've had happy people holding hands, but instead they show an orgy of people ecstatic intercut with Neo and Trinity. Its humanity in more primal aspect- but clean and natural. These are two people in love making love, the phsyciality of enjoying life that no machine can ever mimic, even if it manages to mimic impulses. you missed the bit with chocolate, but that could be more about the basic impulses that programs can influence, but not control.
T&A? Sure, but that reaction has more to do with movie prudishness with nudity (and the assumption that naked means humping on the ground)- in women in general and god forbid men.
There was a time when sex was still considered a sacred act, and not dirty. It is a temple that they dance in after all. There is a difference sexuality as sensuality and sexuality as something that amounts to pronography. I take the former as the intent... Salon has a pretty good review with this take on it.
I don't think they pulled all this off, but I do think the W bros intended the movie as more than sensationalism and spectacle. I do distinctly prefer this to juvenile takes on sexuality.
I posted these things before, and as much as I love karma, I'm doing it again 'cause I'm genuinely interested if anyone had this take:
I think its strange in a movie with so many takes at the fallibility of perception and versimilitude that people don't take seriously the possiblity that Neo has gained powers outside the Matrix, and insist that what he emerges in must be a second matrix. If he is the 6th iteration of an anomaly that gets stranger every time, why not? (I do take the 6 as a reference to the Mayan world epoch calender, any version number will do honestly). He has a connection to Agent Smith- another anomalous intelligence (artificial or otherwise) with insight to the system as a whole.
If we grudgenly accept the human as batteries thing, why can't Neo take his connection to machines wireless in the "real" world? Part of him still jacked into the matrix and therefore the system, and therefore the machines. Before you know it he can take them over...
Agent Smith can just as easily take over someone by taking over their code- the brain wiring. People are jacked in as brains, not bodies. When he envelopes the person in the matrix, he's refashioning their entire minds to fit his own. And when they wake up, they're agent smith. He should theoretically be disoriented in non-matrix real world, but if he maintains a kind of hive consciouness trhough a connect to the system (which he senses better than Neo, per their covnersations- a connection Smith acknowledges but Neo just likes to answer "I know" to everything. I don't think he does know.) perhaps he copes together as a Hive mind.
Considering the prophecy notions- taking the Melvigian (sp?) take on human behavior as pure human impulse through causality- you'd figure a lot of what anyone is planning ought to be able to be statistically predicted by the an architect, or any massive computer. Esp. if- more than being programs, as the Archtiect mentioned, even your checmical reactions in the body (DNA as source code) could be influenced. Its a fundamental paradox in the idea of an all-knowing Creator/God. What's the difference between an ineffable plan and predestination. And if there is a plan, which will always play out since God is an expert-what is the pt?
How it all pans out- choice vs. being controlled, is up to a personal view or the W bros. Considering the they're alive hopefulness of the Morpheus speeechs, I lean away from the Matrix within a Matrix/ Prisoner "Who is number one" take - though I admit its possibly. I just don't feel they'ed end it with a box inside a box endless loop of questioning.
neo is the first fully unpredictable person who manipulates the choices as well as the architect program. The no-win of the two doors turned into a win- or delay fo the endgame in the "real world."
"That's not an unreasonable argument. Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote a book called "On Certainty" making a very similar argument against Cartesian philosophy. You might like to read it; it's probably at your local Barnes & Noble."
See, this is my point. I have read it. It's boring as hell, and it doesn't add anything to the response to Descartes I though of right off the bat.
"You might also like to read what other people have had to say about in response to that argument, or about what the implications of that argument might be. But I don't think 'The Matrix', entertaining as it is, moves the discussion forward at all."
Or I might want to think for myself. I don't think "The Matrix" moves the discussion forward amonst people who are already familiar with the ideas, but it certainly does amongst those who aren't. And I don't think being familiar with twenty peoples writings about each others writings moves anything forward for anyone. It just lets you think you look smart while you actually look like an elitist asshole. I too took a bunch of philosophy in college, until I decided it was fun, but basically pointless. I can sum up what you'll learn from Descarte, Wittgenstein, and the whole philosophy of mind bunch in a quick Socratic dialog:
"You know, you can't really know anything, because even when you're sure, you can't be sure you're sure."
"What the fuck are you talking about?"
"Well, when you think you know something, it's only because you think you know about knowing things, but you could be wrong about the whole deal."
"Okay, I can see that. What's the point?"
"Uh, nothing really, but it's kind of weird."
"Yeah I guess. Listen, I gotta go..."
"But wait! Kripke's reformulation of Wittgensteins third assertion has significant impact on the challenge of the neo-Cartesian... Well, you're probably not familiar with Kripke, are you?" <now he thinks I'm smart>
"No, not really." <elitist asshole>
But you have to incorporate all the crap from the Oracle and the French guy. "Choice is an illusion created by those in power for those without." (or whatever). Accepting that concept, means that Neo didn't really have a choice of doors, he was expected to choose one of them, while believing that he had a choice. Not having a choice made the humans wake up from the Matrix, so they created scenarios in which the humans believed they had a choice, when really they always did what they were expected to do.
By Neo making the choice that was unexpected of him, he rejects the scenario that was placed before him, and thereby starts to "wake up" from the Matrix even more.... and ends up realizing that the "real world" (the world of Zion and eating oatmeal, etc.) is actually another Matrix. What everyone thinks of as "The Matrix" is actually a Matrix within a Matrix, which is why once Neo 'wakes up' a second time, he can start to use his powers in "the real world" too.
The same programming flaws that allowed the 1% of people to 'wake up' and reject the First Matrix, would also allow 1% of THOSE people to eventually wake up and reject the Second Matrix. Which is why every 100 years the robots come in and wipe out everyone in Zion, to keep the chances of that 1% of 1% from growing to a whole number. Only this time, the "Messiah" was stronger than they had allowed for...
If Neo had chosen the other door, he would not have destroyed "The Matrix", he would have only destroyed the First Matrix, and believing he had done so, would have started Zion again believing that it was "the real world", and not tried to "wake up" any more. The architect told him that the machines would continue to survive even if he chose to destroy the Matrix ("we are prepared to accept some level of" existence(?)), so it could have been a reasonable ploy to convince the descendents of those 23 people that the machines were still alive and came back to capture them and put them back in the Matrix, or something.
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
SPOILER
Unlike almost every other spoiler post here, I don't think I quite buy the Matrix within a Matrix idea. There are 2 main events that hint about the Matrix in a Matrix:
1. Agent Smith passes himself to the "real" world
2. Neo stops the Sentinels with a wave of his hand
The Matrix within a Matrix certainly answers those two issues, but my theory is that those two issues are directly related. At the end of Matrix 1, Neo literally merges himself with Smith and kills Smith. In Matrix 2, Smith is the equivalent of a computer virus except that he is free like Neo. So Smith assorbs some of Neo.
Neo in return probably assorbed some of Smith and is able to communicate directly with the machine and hence his abilities to stop the Sentinals. All this is speculation of course, as we really won't know the answer until Matrix 3.
I really liked the Architect scene and how it explained things. The orgy scene definitely didn't belong.
Ok, but I think that your problems are an artifact of your place of education, not the actual works you studied.
Pray tell, what exactly are these problems of which you speak? Further, how would my education pertain to these problems?
Personally, philosophy study has taught me quite a bit about historical philosophical thought in a variety of realms and also modern controversies and the recovery from the now-widely-criticized Cartesian split.
Did you type that for a resume or something? That seems like a rather narrow benefit to gained your love of wisdom. It is also, to use a more vulgar expression, utter bullshit.
You can write all you want about how worthless your education was, but that is just it: it was your education.
Ahh I can see where this is going, apparently you haven't learned one of the first lessons of philosophy, and that is moderation. Your response is already far out of proportion to what was a rather innocent and obviously light hearted post. Perhaps you didn't notice the parent post regarding how university philosophy professor are out of touch with reality. As pretty much any serious student of philosophy would easily admit, college is only the beginning of what is a life long journey.
Philosophy is great, and I have learned more from philosophy (that I can apply to my actual life) than I have in any of my other studies, though I am a triple major (philosophy, German, psychology), as well as a professional technical writer, and contracting network administrator/web designer.
Like I said, I don't believe you have mastered some of the more basic concepts of self control and moderation but I am glad your studies suited your needs. I must say however that unless you attended a school with less than demanding standards a triple major is hard to believe. I attended a top jesuit university and I could barely finish math and philosophy in four years, with fairly substantial AP credit. What relevence this has to our discussion, I don't know... but I feel like ripping on you.
I can't reasonably hope to disprove your non-coginitivist claims about your personal experience, but if you want to talk about _facts_, you mentioned a few that seemed ludicrous to me:
Why am I not surprised you have decided to use some 20th century buzz word. Please, by all means, let me know what non-cognitivist claims I am making... You read the opinion of a former philosophy student, I would love to see what claims you derived from a flippant post.
However, the reason you did not learn about the Critique in you undergraduate program is because you would need to spend an extremely intense period of time studying it -- usually in a course during graduate school.
Actually, I had to take a whole class in it. Having attended a Jesuit university meant that most classes revolved around theistic philosophers, and as that single book is the best weapon a theist has for defending his faith it was required.
Second, to say that Das Kapital has never been completely read by any man alive today is ridiculous, unless you mean only that it has never been fully understood by any man alive today, which is a question that is impossible to resolve.
Apparently, in your vast studies of philosophy and literature, you have never encountered the rhetorical device of exaggeration. Since such poetic devices are used frequently by Nietzsche, it seems you are unfamiliar with one major philosopher otherwise you would not have taken my words so literally.
This seems strange in one of the most thorough philosophy programs in the country, but as one of my professors said: we leave Marx for the less intelligent political science theorists.
I think that claim is another example of how you embody the very problem with academia today. I will not comment on Marx here, but it is unreasonable for a learned individual to dismiss any profoundly effective work as someth
I don't read or respond to AC posts