Slashdot Mirror
IGN Interviews Natalie Portman
feller writes "IGN FilmForce has posted an interview with Natalie Portman from yesterday's Comic Con regarding her new film, V For Vendetta (written by Andy and Larry Wachowski, creators of The Matrix trilogy) and also covering everything from misguided fans, to what merits the use of violence, to Portman's own opinions about graphic novels. From the interview: 'Most of the Q&A session was dominated with questions for Natalie Portman, the star of the film. While the questions leveled at her ranged from weird to repetitive, one confused young man asked if starring in movies like Mighty Ducks was different than starring in films like V for Vendetta. Problem is, Ms. Portman never starred in Mighty Ducks. '"
I really thought this was a "news for nerds, stuff that maters" site... I would wager that the majority of the rest of the Slashdot readership is asking themselves the same thing I am:
WHO THE FUCK CARES?
If I wanted to see fluff garbage from some Hollywood celeb trash, I would turn on the E! channel, like the wife does every 20 minutes... Now I gota see it on Slashdot. Damn!
bash: rtfm: command not found
While everyone's all "wah, what is slashdot coming to, why do I need to know what some so-called actress says", I'd like to remind you that Ms. Portman has long been a geekboy fantasy, and as such is entitled to a place of honor in good'ole Slashdot.
Plus, I challenge any red-blooded geek to see the film Garden State and not fall in love with the woman. I mean it; you really should check out that movie, the quirky, original script alone makes it worth it.
With the date difference between the matrix and the terminator, I'd say she just wrote a script about governing computer mainframes and machines in the 70's, submitted it to a bunch of people, noticed some story similarities, and obsessively thought they stole her work...lawyers...profit!!!
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Have you seen Closer? Not a bad film. Garden State is decent too.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
No offense to Portman, but have I been reading wrong graphic novels?
Dunno. Have you read V for Vendetta? There are a lot of historical and literary references ranging from Homer and Shakespeare to the Rolling Stones. Maybe Hyper-intellectual is a bit of an exaggeration, but they're certainly intellectual.
Alan Moore is quite clearly trying to turn the comic book into a recognised an artform in its own right.
More like the plagarisers of the matrix. I should clarify that. I believe they did write the Matrix 2 and 3. But I believe Sophia Stewart's claim that they stole her idea (especially for the first movie). The second and third movies are so pathetic, that it's obvious to anyone who has seen the movies that they weren't written by the same people.
... erm... cool special effects?
Just because there is a lawsuit aleging that the idea was stolen doesn't mean that it actually is. First of all, Sophia Stewart's claim is not only that the plot of The Matrix was stolen from her (unreleased) book "The Third Eye", but also that the plot of The Terminator was aswell. What do these two movies have in common:
1) Machines take over
2)
How is it possible that two movies with completely different storylines were stolen from one book? It's quite obvious that she has simply noticed a few similarities between her book and these two movies, and decided to profit from it, as well as get publicity for her book which she has now decided to publish.
No they shouldn't. People like you who desend into moral hysteria about peoples thoughts should be shot. There are far more "sick" things than thinking about underage sex, though you seem to think that a thought crime is worse than all these by advocating a penalty that is not applied to even the worse crimes, except in some parts of the USA. Strange the way the "moral" people are far more likely to advocate death.
This guy are sick.
(I admit the "evidence" that I present in a moment is rather weak, but then I also think the claims made by this Sophia person are extremely, deeply stupid. IMHO, the idea that she originally created scripts with material used for both the Matrix and Terminator is a typically pathetic urban legend. Just like aligators live in the sewers or that NASA didn't send missions to the moon.)
Evidence (weakly--really more like hearsay, but at least it's someone I consider reliable): In the first half of this vmyths article, Rob Rosenberger claims to have been asked to serve as technical advisor for the Matrix.
The studio sent him materials describing the plot of the movie. When he went to the theater and saw the Matrix, it didn't end like he thought it would. Later, after finding out what was in store for Matrix: Reloaded, he realized the reason the first movie hadn't ended like he'd expected was because the studio materials the studio had sent him had been used in the making of all three movies.
------------I really don't think Matrix 2 and 3 are so different from the first one. What makes them seem so different is that the first film had a miraculous revelation--that the world we thought was real isn't. The 1st film spent time exploring this notion and let us in on the whole thing slowly. Unfortunately, once the concept of The Matrix had been established, the not-so-bright Wachowski brothers had no new revelations to top it. This happens frequently. I see many, many, many movies, indeed stories in general, that start out with a lot of promise, but are ultimately not able to follow through when it comes around to the middle and especially the end. This is because it's the mystery that survives, not the explanation. To put that another way: it's much easier to ask a thought provoking and inspiring "what if?" question than it is to come up with an equally profound, deeply meaningful answer. 42.
After the first movie had been seen, but before the 2nd or 3rd movies came out, people had a lot of time (waaay too much time) to build up naive ideas about what direction the trilogy would eventually take. Fan expectations rose ever higher, and it's no surprise that the eventual conclusion could not live up to those (unrealistic) expectations.
Please go back and watch The Matrx (#1) again sometime--try to throw away all those ideas about what you thought it was supposed to mean and just watch the thing--I think you'll find it's not quite so brilliant as you may have led yourself to believe.
(P.S. Hope I didn't flame--if so, I didn't mean to, I'm just opinionated.)Furry cows moo and decompress.
That would be "descend".
I point you to one of my previous posts....
And any way you slice it, people who fantasize about banging prepubescents are seriously fucked up. That isn't normal, natural, or even rational.
People said the same about homosexuality in the past, and did terrible things to them. Turing for example. Normal and natural are extremely subjective. There was a time when it was normal to burn "witches" and enemies of the church. Again Homosexuals were considered unnatural despite a significant amount of people being so inclined. As for rational...well love isn't rational, nor should we expect it to be.
Sure. Actually *having* sex with prepubescents. Here, I'll edit my original statement like so:
"we should THINK about putting people who fantasize about having sex with children up against a wall and shooting them"
and
"anyone who has sex with a prepubescent should be put up against a wall and shot"
That make you feel better?
Well i don't think we should think about killing anyone for their thoughts, but i respect the right to think about anything, even killing people for thinking. I don't think people should be shot for having consensual sex with a prepubescent. If it's rape then they should recieve a trial by due process. Hopefully the court would not be so barbaric as to give the death sentance as punishment for this crime, an appropriate long jail term with rehabilitation would be a much better solution. As for the penalty for consensual sex, well i believe there should be none. No doubt you will take strong issue with this and i can see why, but i do not believe that such people are doing anything wrong and it is none of my or anyone elses right to condemn them for their own private consented behavior, which does not hurt wider society in any way.
No, I think fantasizing about having sex with children makes you a sick motherfucker, and not someone I want to associate with in any way, shape or form.
I can't argue with that, I wouldn't like to associate with people that i consider to take actions abhorrent to me either.
Never claimed to be "moral", though you seem fine with the misquote. Guess my "hysteria" was infectious.
I looked at some of your previous posts and i thought they were very conservative and thus presumed you to be one of those people who consider yourself a bastion of morality. This was a wrong assumtion on my part, assumptions often make a fool out of a poster, and i take your point here.
This guy are sick.
You're talking about screwing someone who hasn't even hit puberty yet - you do know that, don't you? How can someone who's say, 8 or 9 years old, consent to having sex?
Well i was thinking more around the ages of 11 or 12, i can't see many people wanting to have sex with girls younger than that. It is hard to put an arbitary cut off point. A underdeveloped 16 year old male could look the same and be at the same physiological development as a overdeveloped 12 year old girl. But i suppose there are a small few that would like girls even younger and indeed even a 10 year old cannot fully comprehend what it means to consent. Right i shall revise my position. 10 and under should be a crime. But i think that by 11, or if not definately 12, a person has enough mental development to understand consent. Therefore i think sex between people this age, or sex between people this age and people older, should not be a crime.
This guy are sick.
Did you even read the article you linked to? Alan Moore doesn't want to be associated with that movie because they attempted to use his name as a selling point for the movie. He hasn't even seen the movie, let alone have an opinion on it.
Granted, I haven't got high hopes for V. I don't see a movie about the violent overthrowing of a totalitarian Western government going over too well in this political climate. Might be too close to comfort for some producers.
But I believe Sophia Stewart's claim that they stole her idea (especially for the first movie).
Do you also believe her claim that she's a divine prophet, and that God wants her to be one of the richest people on the planet? Or that there are "secret" early versions of the DVD that have scenes in them that were modified in later versions to cover up plagarism? (i.e., that the film you saw in theaters and the DVD have significant differences that nobody but she knows about). Or that she had to fire her lawyers because they were being bribed by the studios?
Don't believe everything you read. The woman's a kook trying to get enormously rich.