Slashdot Mirror
From Alien to The Matrix
The book seemed interesting enough from the cover, given a pleasant upsurge in the number of meaning and philosophy books on many SF films. I was expecting another take on my current joy, The Matrix universe, as well as some tidbits from other movies to get me delving for the hidden jokes and thoughts of a classic or two, like the Alien movies. Despite the title, the book is not all inclusive on film SF and does not discuss with any significance any of the latest Marvel superhero movies, and definitely skips discussion on the the Lord of the Rings trilogy--a tragic omission in light of its popular and Oscar-winning performance that brought SF/Fantasy to Hollywood legitimacy. Specifically, the writer discusses and contrasts elements from a handful of interesting SF movies of the last quarter-century, including
* The Matrix trilogy, including elements from "The Animatrix" and the "Enter the Matrix" game
* The Alien movie saga
* Galaxy Quest
* Dark City
* The Star Wars saga
* The Terminator saga
* Strange Days
* Small Soldiers
Small Soldiers? That was science-fiction? That was worthy of discussion in a book on SF film meanings? Surely there were other films of the last 25 years related to the chapter's subject on robots and AI that were more germane, such as "Bicentennial Man," "I, Robot," "Star Trek: Nemesis," and even the writer's home favorite of Marvin from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (not the 2005 release, but the 1980's TV depiction from the BBC, since this book was apparently printed in the early months of this year).
This book was written by someone that doesn't appear to read or watch much in the way of SF beyond what they see at the movies. Realizing that the writer was British, I tried (and failed) to give her allowance for her non-American point-of-view on the topic, hoping for some enlightenment over my decadent Cowboy Way of watching SF here in America. There are many areas in the book where her interpretation simply is misinformed. The writer apparently had chosen to write her book as a self-interpretation of the movies in question, failing almost completely to read other interpretations or discussions from the movie's directors or screenwriters.
The book as a whole, particularly with its monotonous small text and a complete lack of the simplest illustrations or even eye-catching chapter header graphics, feels like a dry collegiate dissertation written by someone who could give a damn about the subject matter and just needs a passing grade.
One example of the author's lack of research or understanding was confirmed by my own mother, a woman of 64 years that enjoys the Matrix movies as much as her son but has developed her understanding of the movies on her own, without my coaching. In one example in the book, the writer says that Neo, in "The Matrix," was told by the Oracle that he was not the One. In fact, the Oracle said no such thing--it was Neo who told himself that he was not the One. The Oracle, after toying with Neo to a degree by examining his hands and face, said, "...but you already know what I am going to say, don't you?" with Neo completing his own assumption, "I'm not the One." The Oracle implied that Neo was indeed in possession of the ability, but that his mind was not ready--a point confirmed by Neo's self-doubt (Neo's pod-name, "Thomas" is a Gnostic Christianity reference to that apostle's doubt of the resurrection of Christ). My mom, of all people, got this, but it was lost completely by the writer.
Other points in the book are just outright wrong and filled with error. Quoting a description about the climatic moments near the end of "The Matrix Revolutions": "Neo sets off to interview the Machines--along the way he is blinded and Trinity killed by a human who has been absorbed by Smith." In fact, Trinity was attacked, but not killed by Bane/Smith -- she would die moments after their hovercraft crash lands near the center of the Machine City.
Bad fact checking is a hallmark of this book. One glaring example was in finding the name of actress Nichelle Nichols of "Star Trek" badly warped to 'Michelle Nichols' in a discussion of the movie "Galaxy Quest." A sentence discussing the kiss between Persephone and Niobe in the cut-scenes of the game "Enter the Matrix" wrongly named Jada Pinkett-Smith's character as "Phoebe." Oh, no. What would Ross and Chandler say?
That's not to say the the whole book is totally tainted. At worse, this book is no less informed than your non-fannish significant other, a person that most of us will still take some time to listen to for wisdom or enjoyment, even if their views seem stupid initially. One quote I will leave to your enjoyment or disdain regarding a take on Darth Sidious from the Star Wars trilogy: "Palpatine is not just a machine politician, but a Dark Lord in the manner of Tolkien, and his corruption of Anakin Skywalker to the point where he becomes Darth Vader parallels the seduction of the human kings who became the Nazgul."
Her discussion on the Alien movies, particularly "Aliens," showed some insight, indicating the writer was more familiar with this material, or just more attentive. I'd guess she was most comfortable with the Alien saga--more than one-third of the book was devoted completely to the Alien movies. The book's title would be more appropriate as From Alien to Alien and More about Alien: And Some Meaningless Discussion About Some Lesser Science Fiction.
The writer name-drops Philip C. Dick, William Gibson, and Heinlein in an attempt to sound knowledgeable. "Big whoop," you might say,"as fanboys to various interests, we ALL do that kind of thing." But like the most decrepit and ill-informed of us non-mundanes, the writer seems to do this more to impress and less to inform, compare or contrast. The names just stick out like they're supposed to have meaning just because they are in the book.
Maybe this is a British thing. Maybe I'm wrong or not as enlightened while scanning this book (which is, unfortunately, the best I could do while trying to read it before I began stammering uncontrollably to myself moments later about some bad interpretation). Maybe I need a book on interpreting this book. I'd like to keep my mind open to the possibility (however unlikely) that this was really not such a bad book for most of us. Buy the book if you like Alien saga interpretations or if you like to invoke apoplexy in yourself or others. Otherwise, look for my copy of this book at your local discount used book store--and don't mind the drink stains and coffee cup rings. The book also doubles as an excellent coaster.
You can purchase From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
"If you love to argue and curse when you read something that's so way off base in interpretation or appears to lack any research in even the basic meanings that most Americans found in a SF film, then this is your book"
And this is our website!!!
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I think this is one of the few times I've seen a negative review on slashdot.
Maybe not.
If you want to get pissed off about something, buy it. Otherwise don't.
Is it published by Microsoft?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I know it's Friday but cmon, this is the keynote speaker at the Boring Expo.
If you love to argue and curse when you read something that's so way off base in interpretation or appears to lack any research in even the basic meanings that most Americans found in a SF film, then this is your book.
Not exactly a stellar promotion for the book. I think this thread may be more informative.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
Note to self. Check facts before submitting anything I write. Gotcha.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Ok, so what you're trying to say is that somehow, there exists a hypothetical slashdotter who in addition to being geeky and liking geeky movies, has enough time/motivation to read geeky books about aforementioned movies, yet was somehow able to gain a significant other?
Blasphemy!
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
'If you love to argue and curse when you read something that's so way off base in interpretation or appears to lack any research in even the basic meanings..."
I can get that right here from the lefties that hang out at Slashdot!
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
When authors need to appropriate someone else's creation instead of coming up with their own, you can't expect much.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Is this story some kind of weird dig at the kind of people who get their 'philosophy' from The Matrix? Or are you actually being serious. I can't tell if I'm supposed to be laughing or crying right now...
--
Maybe this is a British thing.
No - this book just confirms what some people suspected for many years : that bad writers are not the exclusive domain of the United States.
-EvilMagnus
Never 'eard of 'im, guv.
I have just finished reading 'The World Jones Made' by Philip K. Dick, if he's any relation?
Oh, and dump your boy/girlfriend, too.
And where exactly are we supposed to get one of those?
+5 Funny.
SF films must be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
Don't try to interpret them, unless of course there is a major character in a trio of epic films who is supposed to be the "chosen one" and is chock full of consciousness lifting life forms, but he acts like one of your kid brothers crack/meth smokin sk8ter buddies whose 14 yr. old girlfriend just told him she has to break up because he won't use a condom.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I find the Matrix universe to be an arbitrary collection of rules that serve as a framework for beautifully-realized gunfights, virtual fruit cart tipping and last-minute escapes. I just don't find it deep or awe inspiring. Once the ridiculous Rube Goldberg secret was revealed, it lost it for me. More of the trend of action films masquerading as sci-fi. I don't mean this as a flame, but I just can't understand why The Matrix is so influential, but I not am not a huge fan of the graphic novel, so I guess I'm not the target audience.
(emphasis mine)
. . . you have to wonder if all the mistakes he was complaining about were due to his own innattention to detail. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.
Nathan's blog
And, more importantly, why should I care?
I'm a fangirl, you insensitive clod!
Don't judge a book by its cover. Or in this case, dont' judge a book by the layout/appearance of its contents. This hardly useful in a book review. When I read, I like to read the author's words; I do not care about the formatting and silly illustrations added by the editor and publisher.
Or the reviewer trying to prove they know more than the author (who is *gasp* a GIRL!). What next, is he going to push her down on the blacktop to prove his affection for her? Reading further his analysis of the same movies is no more informed than the author's (though he definitely seems to think they are)... although we'd never know. The author's opinions on Aliens are given no summary save the backhanded compliment the reviewer gives them. The haughty "Oh, and dump your boy/girlfriend, too" just makes me think he needs to get out more and talk to the opposite sex.
The reviewer mentions the LOTR trilogy and then following question appears further down:
Small Soldiers? That was science-fiction?
Good question. But LOTR wasn't. It was all fantasy, so why act surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the book. Because Small Soldiers was?
Science-fiction fans make a slight distinction between the terms "SF" and "Sci-fi" which you don't seem to be aware of.
- Sci-fi is easy-to-get-into science fiction, like Star Trek, Matrix and I, robot. In short, sci-fi is more like a regular story, or show, set in some futuristic universe
- SF is hard-core, or "serious" science fiction. That includes, for example, books from Iain M. Banks, and movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. SF works are usually space operas, well researched on the (possible) technical plan, and can plunge the reader/viewer right down the weird and absolutely alien, which not all may like.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
http://www.daghettotymz.com/matrix/matrix.html
I don't know why, but that link just popped into my head for some reason..
Philip C. Dick?
Oh, and dump your boy/girlfriend, too
um, why would anyone want to cut off their own hands?
my blog
It is fair to say that Thomas is a reference that can be understood as generically Christian, not just "gnostic," since the account of Doubting Thomas is in the orthodox canon. The author is probably asymilating the apostle Thomas with the author of the pseudopigraphal "Gospel of Thomas," which was a gnostic document.
Faromir and Baromir's temptations (apt analogues to the historical fall of the Nazgul kings) are the possibility of using the Ring to save his kingdom; Anakin's is the possibility of using the dark side of the force to save his wife.
Both treat the seductive temptation of evil. MHO: Lucas thrashes about for a whole movie in a failed attempt to present what Tolkien elegantly manages in two chapters of his epic.
I think that so many people thought that the Matrix was a literary masterwork because not many people have read many actual literary masterworks.
Who the hell does that?
I have seen the term 'Hard' sci-fi to mean a more grounding to reality. That may or may not be an space opera.
Star wars is a space opera, and it is not hard sci-fi.
The ease to get into it depends on the presentation of the story. Nothing more.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Err, shouldn't that be Philip K. Dick?
Not A Sig
If I found out my s.o. was actually a boy/girlfriend, yes I'd definitely dump her. But thanks for the advice!
Of all the things to object to, this one shouldn't even have made the list. It's a book. It mean for those who can read. And this particular complaint puts me in mind of a child complaining about how "real books" are "too hard".
Most of my library is full of great books that lack the simplest illustrations (even though I have more than a shelf's worth of Hellboy, Sandman, Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and suchlike; lest you get the wrong idea, be assured that I'm not opposed to illustrations) or eye-catching chapter-header graphics. I like books where the type is monotonous; anything eye-catching catches my eye, disturbs my reading, and derails my concentration.
Some of the worst books I've encountered rely on ever-changing fonts, plentiful illustrations, eye-catching graphics, all to hide the fact that the author isn't saying much, or even saying it well.
If the reviewer has come to rely on that sort of reading experience, perhaps it's because they've not been reading the right sort of books. Put down those technical manuals and pick up a volume of Wodehouse. Set aside that Learn-in-21-days tome and grab some Kipling. Whatever you do, go read something by someone who can entrance you with words, where the illustrations are created by your own imagination, where what catches your eye is the next sentence, and the next, and the next...
This isn't to say that the book may be any good. I don't know, I haven't read it. I can imagine that it's a hard thing to do, to identify and discuss the themes of SF movies, much less more than one or two, in a single book. To cover the genre would likely result in a three-inch coffee-table book, four columns of tiny (monotonic!) type on every family-bible-thin page.
Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
But seriously, I can't understand why this book is of any interest. It appears to be full of stupid errors, and seems to add nothing to the existing canon. I was expected the reviewer to say that it was mostly intolerable, but had a few gems that made it worthwhile. This is after all why we have book reviews. Not to tell what not to read, but what we might not ordinarily read, but might nevertheless enjoy. Of course, in an era where the only popular books are movie rewrites(thank you so much start wars), insightful reviews are too much to ask for.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
This is a plot that SF cannot seem to transcend. Neo of The Matrix has to save the human race? Oh wait, no, Sarah Conner from The Terminator is supposed to do that. Or is it young Master Skywalker? Or Paul Atreides from Dune? (He's only saving one planet's worth, really, I guess). The guy from Dark City also only saves a city's worth, but the story's the same. Even the best Superman movie (TWO, DERF) featured the Kryptonian as reluctant to save the whole frigging planet. Not really topical, but Frodo doesn't seem really that into it either.
blarg.
That would be Philip _K_ Dick.
Yikes. Thanks for the heads up on a worthless book.
Joel
Reading "something that's so way off base in interpretation" doesn't seem quite so bad after reading through several paragraphs of "stammering" fanboy nitpicking about it.
many young people showed interest in discussing things on a philisophical basis. How many movies have done that? I listend to a friends kid talk to his buddies, and they made some pretty could philisophical observation, and made some statements that held a lot of similaritiy to classic philosphies. I even recommended some books.
They were thinking about something other then 'cool explosion' and chicks in leather. I eman, that came up, but it wasn't the ONLY thing they talked about.
I consider that good.
Persoanlly, I found that it pointed out central themes in religeon and rather nicely brought them together. Plus, hot chicks in leather.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Points to ya man. Never was the truth spoken more clearly. Lucas' obviously had no idea how to induce Anakins 'switch', except for lame-ass 'dreams' and mumblings from Palp about powers... You can't even compare LOTR and SW in the same breath...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
That Alien #3 was supposed to have been a much superior movie? I even read the script to it, someone once posted a link to it here on slashdot. Alan Dean Foster, of all people, wrote it. It was pretty good, I could see what it would have been...
Oh, and the setup it would have left for #4 would have been awe-inspiring. Leave it to hollywood to fuck up unfuckupable trilogies...
actually, reviewer needs to learn that in a book about sci-fi or SF, things about LOTR is completely off basis. Just because people who like sci-fi also like fantasy, they are not the same. Also, the reviewer probably needs to realize that comic book heroes are NOT sci-fi by the measures of almost all people. Comic books are mostly their own domain(at least the classic comic books which have been the ones to be turned into movies).
If the reviewer is going to bash someone for including Small Soldiers, he should probably figure out that what he wanted to read about had nothing at all to do with the book title as well.
994 to go!
While I can appreciate the innate fanboy urge to persecute anyone who fails to properly respect the Truth of his or her personal religion-replacement, I'd usually rather hear about what could have been done to make a work better rather than why a particular work is bad. Getting published isn't easy, and between editors, fact checks, and other people involved in the process, the final product may not always bear a lot of relation to what you originally meant. The original story of A Clockwork Oarnge versus the American version of the story used for the movie is a good example of that. While I personally don't care for the original version (feeling that it's a bit excessively...British, I suppose) I was interested in how the last chapters radically alter the meaning of the story.
And speaking of which, I feel that the book being reviewed that started all of this could have done with a bit more representation of Kubrick's work if it wanted to talk about philosophy in sci-fi.
Just in case anyone thought I wasn't the kettle when I made fun of people's personal hobby horses earlier.
Let's see.
Goes out of there way to point out they are a girl.
Then goes out of there way to point out that they are an Lesbian.
Yep, your a guy....or a neo pagan.
Thank you, I'll be here all week!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm sorry but what exactly has LOTR to do with SF?
The author is probably asymilating the apostle Thomas with the author of the pseudopigraphal "Gospel of Thomas," which was a gnostic document.
They are assumed to be the same. That is, whether you accept it as authentic or not, the supposed author of the text (if not the document) is the same as the doubting Thomas.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
I'm a true SF geek, having read literally thousands of SF books and stories in my lifetime. I think anyone who has more than a cursory interest in the topic knows that there are very few science fiction movies at all. Most of them are science fantasy. To be frank, bad science fantasy.
Most anything that is mass marketed is dumbed down as the suits think that most audiences are stupid hicks. I'm kinda sorry for the author of this review. It's obvious he hasn't experienced any really good SF, and so has nothing to compare things to. I mean, sure, I enjoyed a lot of these movies as the escapist fluff they are, but I wouldn't try to defend any of them from serious criticism.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Galaxy Quest is a true personal favorite, although it's about science fiction fandom, and not really a science fiction story.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that Dark City and Strange Days were included, both underrated masterpieces and in my mind a lot more interesting than the contrived puzzles in any of the Matrix movies. The Alien movies deserve all the attention they can get.
Lord of the Rings was rightly excluded, it's not science fiction--and fantasy is just a totally different bag, as any fan knows. (LOTR is a reactionary myth, SF is generally progressive in its world views and morals.)
The first half of the review is just opinions repeated and stacked. The reviewer complains about poor interpretations and analyses, but once he gets to the examples they are all of typos, misspelled names, and misattributed quotes. None of the mistakes quoted are crucial to interpretation of the stories. In addition, the numerous references to the author's origin is a clear and unwarranted ad hominem. The reviewer even manages to make a joke at his own expense at one time:
"The book as a whole, particularly with its monotonous small text and a complete lack of the simplest illustrations or even eye-catching chapter header graphics..."
Well yes, in the UK they are known to read books without pictures from time to time.
Moreover, I suspect that the giving Dick's name as "Philip C. Dick" was actually the reviewer's mistake. Very few fans are likely to make it, and I doubt it would pass a very cursory proofing of a book on science fiction. If it occurs repeatedly in the book then that would be a sign that there is something very seriously wrong with it.
There are generally too many books on science fiction movies and hard to find one with some memorable content. But I'm not ready to dismiss this one after the review I've just read.
If the reviewer has come to rely on that sort of reading experience, perhaps it's because they've not been reading the right sort of books. Put down those technical manuals...
I was thinking this is probably the first book he's read since mgrade school. All his reading since has been on the web. That explains the whole review, not just the one point. 8^)
Got it:
Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels.
Thanks. I would like to note something about Thomas and the gospel of John. The major thematic structure of John has to do with the motif of "belief." Therefore the story of Doubting Thomas is of great importance to that theme. Even one of Jesus' closest disciples lacked belief, but then came to. And the thrust of that section is that belief must come without any physical proof for most Christians. Anyway, that is why I think that Doubting Thomas is an integral part of the literary structure of John, and not an addition/reaction to the gnostic sect.
Not suprising that a place where intelligent people come to engage in discourse isn't frequented by many right wingers. They are far too righteous to deal with such petty things as "facts" and "proof".
Will the next volume be: From Matrix II to Zardoz?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
After reading the book, I can't say I disagree with the reviewer in the slightest. Name-dropping is bad, people--but namedropping Heinlein, for God's sake, is a lot worse.
Here's just one thing they could've fact-checked:
"(Neo's pod-name, "Thomas" is a Gnostic Christianity reference to that apostle's doubt of the resurrection of Christ). My mom, of all people, got this, but it was lost completely by the writer."
The story of "doubting Thomas" is in the *canonical* Gospels, not the gnostic ones. Now, there is the gnositc "Gospel of Thomas" which is something entirely different (it's mostly sayings), the influence of which basically died out when Gnosticism did, back in ancient times. I think its authorship was also in doubt, but I don't recall offhand. It's a favorite source of the "Jesus Seminar," but considered a lot less important by the bulk of mainstream scholars, even if some think it contains a pre-Markan sayings source. I believe they discuss a lot of it in "The Five Gospels" but I cannot seriously reccomend reading that piece of crap.
So calling it a "gnostic" reference is misleading, at best. That particular story is certainly cannon, even if the gospel of the same name is most certainly not.
I believe you meant to write K.
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
Comment removed based on user account deletion
She has co-written stories with Neil Gaiman, and was a Contributing Editor to John Clute and John Grant's Encyclopedia of Fantasy
She's no stranger to Media Fandom, either, being one of the major figures in UK Buffy Fandom (possibly in part because, if they were real, she would have likely been an Oxford classmate and fellow inhabitant of low dives with Rupert Giles and Ethan Rayne).
In addition to knowing more or less everyone who is the least bit connected with SF in the UK, she has lead a life which can, perhaps, best be understood as science fiction, of the Late Heinlein or John Varley variety, in that, like all good posthumans, she has actually changed genders and sexual orientations during her lifetime.
If that isn't demonstrative of a true dedication to science fiction, I don't know what is.
"Is this story some kind of weird dig at the kind of people who get their 'philosophy' from The Matrix? Or are you actually being serious."
We can only hope the review is a joke. The book sounds equally lousy but more easily dismissed: am I the only Slashdot reading, SF loving person who finds the vast majority sci-fi movies and TV shows useless or worse? (Yes, I'm including Star Wars and Star Trek.)
The reviewer complains about the movies chosen but doesn't suggest the clever and deep SF treatments that have appeared. Red Dwarf. Gattaca. Solaris (Tarkovsky, not Hollywood). There are many more though not as many as there should be. The Matrix is as profound as a stoned college bull session. Fun but boiled off by morning's sober light. Might I suggest Thomas M. Disch's THE DREAMS OUR STUFF IS MADE OF: How Science Fiction Conquered the World? One third pungent SF criticism, two-thirds examination of SF's influence on society and culture. UFO cultism, wet-noodle brained sci-fi TV, Heinlein's going solipsistic bonkers. All there. Couple it with Barry Malzberg's scarifying, funny Engines of the Night.
Feeling so good natured I could drool
This has been mentioned 50 times.
From the review I get the impression the only flaw it doesn't suffer from is a chip on its shoulder as regards nationality.
Sci-Fi is (obviously) short for Science Fiction, and is predominantly used in reference to "The Golden Age of Sci-Fi" (read Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, etc). This is "hard" science fiction, where special attention is giving in the story to make it scientifically believable. In fact, Sci-Fi / Science Fiction was originally coined "Scientifiction," but that didn't quite catch on.
SF is much more general, and is a concept championed by such authors Harlan Ellison and Ursala LeGuin. It stands for "Speculative Fiction." The idea behind it is that there is less focus on the scientific reality behind the story, and more behind the extrapolated ideas. The Left Hand of Darkness did not simply focus on the genetics behind a genderless society, it focused on the possible social affects. The science is assumed.
This may all seem like nitpicking, but I had the pleasure to attend the 2004 Nebula awards. Neil Gaiman's acceptance speech was read by Harlan Ellison. Neil made him agree to read it verbatim. And Harlan looked more upset when Neil made him say he was a "Sci-Fi" author than when he was made to say he was a Republican. So the gist of the story? Sci-Fi is what is known as "Hard SF" and SF in general is not to be confused with "Sci-Fi." It does not...compute.
The abundance of posts such as the aformentioned indicate that inexorably the criticisms of the sequals are generated by those who did not focus assidously on understanding the precise nature of the Matrix.
Ergo some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not.
The clarification for the mansifestion for Neo's power outside of the matrix is dependent on the Architect's commentary on the function of "The One". Fundamentally Neo's power derives from the machines themselves, "The Source" as it were, whose raison d'etre is to also administer the sentinals, harvesters, etc... Thus, Neo has the qualifications to dispatch the sentinals, ironically using his conduit though "The Source" against the machines themselves.
Admittedly, minor anomalities exist that inevitabily must be elucidated, particularly, the localization of Neo's ascendancy, thus the adjacent sentials could be extirpated yet remote sentinals were not correspondingly affected, and his brain possessing the capability of connecting to the Matrix without "jacking-in". I assert the film contains within itself explications for these as well as the various other inquiries proposed by those skeptical of the profound nature of this trilogy.
My aspiration is that people will allot a moderate interval of time to analyze the implications and connotations though their interpretations, and castigate the sequals concerning the subpar elements: inadequate acting and confabulation and an overemphasis on CGI paraphernalia, which diminishes the quality of the film and must ergo, be denunciated. Apropos the transcendent DVD boxset, it contains penetrating divinations regarding the aformentioned questions.
That aside, my criticism of the matrix is not that, like me, the Wachowski brothers used a thesaurus like it was going out of style, the vague pseudo mysticism (as opposed to nonvague nonpseudo mystacism), or any of the other minor botched details. The major problem is that the trilogy is incoherent. The first film is complete, the second and third are just a poor excuse to draw out the series. It's parallel to Star Wars, except Lucas got someone good to write ESB.
As a side note, I'm pretty sure I misspelled a few words. Show how "1337" you are by finding them!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm surprised she doesn't mention Doctor Who since she's British and the Doctor is really a british institution....
There were two good movies based on Doctor Who (the ones with the Daleks in them) starring Peter Cushing and the tv-movie with Paul McGann...
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
Was this the author's error, or the reviewer's?
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." --Ayn Rand