Just because someone doesn't think that the matrix is deep doesn't mean they're biased. You're another one of those people who seem to think that only they know what is good and whats not and anyone who likes a different movie/music/book than you somehow lacks something as a human being. That's pretty unfortunate.
What is unfortunate is people who feel the need to avoid any form of conformity whatsoever to the point that they don't enjoy a popular movie--on all its levels, because they are there and do exist in the film--and feel the need to bash others for it.
Check your superiority complex at the door. Trendy counterculturalism is dying.
I didn't really leave the movie knowing anything particularly new about the "Matrix" and the position of the human race was not particularly different at the end than the beginning.
Give me a break. The ending completely threw out the assumptions of the first movie. The One and the Prophecy were simply a means of control, to reload the Matrix and rebuild Zion for another cycle. Everything is suddenly thrown into question, including the motives of the Oracle.
Now there are only 24 hours left until Zion is permanently destroyed, and we are also left dealing with the fact that the Matrix will be suffering a system crash soon, killing everyone connected to it. And that's not different from the beginning?
How are we to have a discussion if you don't give your reasons for disagreeing with the fact that there are philosophical references in the movie that you, for whatever reason, choose to ignore?
Corporate Mofo certainly doesnt justify it, why do they get off so easy? I'm sorry, I dont accept something to be true because 2 numbers match up, and a website I've never heard of says its true.
The Wachowskis are well-known for using these sorts of philosophical and religious sources for the Matrix movies. I assume you were unaware.
Why? It's interesting you don't give a reason to call it lame. Clearly, you have no reasoning behind your argument.
It was lame and flat because, quite frankly, it was a bizarre attempt at some sort of mocking point that didn't address anything. Of course Neo doesn't represent a soda. How odd.
You question the motivation of the movie's philosophy because you can't accept that such a pop culture film would be genuine in its attempts. Fair enough, though the Wachowskis are known for what they do. Considering how inaccessible Matrix Reloaded actually is, I'm surprised anyone could be suspicious of its motives.
Many will consider that a cop-out; however, considering the upcoming Matrix Online game takes place after the events of Revolutions, that is a valid possibility.
I, too, doubt the theories that Zion is another Matrix. It is being brought up due to Neo's apparent real-world powers, which I think stem from an entirely different reason. I don't think an EMP triggered the dropping of the Sentinels. It seemed clear that it was Neo raising his hand and physically stopping them himself. We'll have to wait for the explanation.
Luckily, the simple idea that someone should actually read what they have decided to express has been around much longer. Especially if the post is a criticism of somebody else's expressions.
People don't ignore it; it's an obvious possibility. However, there are other more likely reasons for Neo's powers in the real world, likely stemming from his connection to Agent Smith.
If Zion were another Matrix, there would be no reason to drill down and destroy it physically; simply killing off those particular crops of humans in the pod rooms would be sufficient. However, there is no way to be sure until seeing the rest of the story in November.
You nailed it. There is a fear of conformity running rampant these days, and because the Matrix had such an impact on geek and--heaven forbid--non-geek crowds alike, there is the idea that it is wrong to enjoy it on any level, especially anything that lends some sort of intellectual basis to it.
Nobody is claiming the Matrix is a college philosophy textbook. But the references in the films are there to be discussed. For some reason, lots of people feel the need to point out that the Matrix glosses over a lot of deeper philosophy out there in the field, which is something nobody claimed otherwise to begin with. I find it amusing.
To the uptights: They are fun action films that base their structure and plot on a lot of different philosophical works. Let people have fun with it, since you are unable to.
The philosophical depths of the movie are certainly there, as evidenced by cast interviews (Hugo Weaving had to ask for the books of German philosophers to understand some scenes). There are specific references to certain texts which are undeniable.
Whether or not you like the rest of the movie is understandable (though one must keep in mind that Reloaded is being treated as the first half of one whole movie).
I am simply amused at people who find a few philosophical references and suddenly can't post fast enough to decry them as superficial and "junk food" so they can feed their superiority complex simply because they read some philosophy books in college. Obviously, a two hour movie is not going to go to the same depths of a textbook, and nobody is claiming that it is. However, the movie raises questions and implications that many people enjoy discussing--including experts in the field, which, for some reason, seems to threaten the counterculturalists around here who hate anything that lends credence to the philosophical questions raised by the Matrix (but, strangely enough, love Star Wars).
Mocking what is clearly there in the movie is snobby elitism. Many here simply refuse to look at the movies on that level because it has guns and leather in it. They are much too uptight, so I like to point it out to them.
Everybody "gets" that they're just fun movies with CG and wire-based kung fu. But it is undeniable fact that there are certain messages being instilled into these movies for a reason. There's nothing wrong with discussing them, particularly since these movies are now such a huge part of pop culture--our generation's Star Wars, so to speak.
As a matter of fact, I'm surprised so many people are against the idea of smart films. These same people are the ones who go around decrying shallow pop culture, and yet when something comes along that breaks the mold, they mock people who discuss it. It's lame and ineffective (and sadly predictable) and is a result of the cynical counterculturalism so prevalent today, mostly due to the internet.
Like I've said before, I refuse to take anything seriously that spouts such nonsense as "Neo's five previous incarnations represent the Five Books of Moses that make up the Old Testament."
Why not? It's interesting you don't give a reason to call it nonsense. Clearly, you have no reasoning behind your argument. You just don't like the movie. To ignore the Gnostic references in the movie is "insane."
Insane... I suppose them calling Neo the "One" means he represents a fictional soft drink, correct?
I'm sure some of it is on the money, but that doesn't obviate the larger problems--we don't care about the people in a real way, the writing is super clunky, the acting is pretty poor......but to the guy at Mofo, it's all because the "unenlightened" don't realize the subtle brilliance.
Okay, so your problems aren't the philosophy, but instead the movie's presentation. I thought your argument was about the philosophical underpinnings? Turns out you just don't like the movie period. It all makes sense now.
Like I said, there are people who just hate to like popular films. Some website points out the obvious philosophical references in the movie, and now you mock him for ignoring the "larger problems," of which you never mentioned or seemed to have a problem with in the first place. I love misinformed bias because it is so easy to point out.
What do you mean "seriously?" If there is serious deeper meaning behind it--and there is--people will discuss it. Do you mean that because it's an action film, what it may gleam will by default be of lesser value than, say, a textbook? You would be wrong in that regard.
My point is that Anonymous Cowards like yourself must bitch to others about "sitting on your arse" for watching a movie and enjoying the deeper parts.
1.) People who use "arse" instead of "ass" are idiots. 2.) You are sitting on your ass flaming someone about the Matrix on Slashdot. Please re-examine your life. 3.) The concern is of anti-intellectualism. You were wrong.
If you want an intelligent discussion of philosophy, read a book you lazy fucks.
That statement at the end proved to me that you are simply a trendy counterculturalist who can't stand the fact that some action movies may also have some meaningful references behind them that people enjoy. Because they're popular in our culture, you can't let yourself into these films because you'd feel like a vulnerable conformist, so you must play the part of the snobby philosophist who feels threatened that people are talking about the purposely placed philosophical references in some popular films. "Ugh! It's not a book, it's an action movie! My whole worldview is threatened!"
It's sad in a way that you are so insecure. If you really didn't care about the movies, you wouldn't care about people liking them either.
Everybody knows it's an action movie with people in leather. It's also fun to discuss the intended philosophical meanings and implications behind many of the scenes, philosophical meanings that experts in the field are discussing with a straight face--in BOOKS.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone doesn't think that the matrix is deep doesn't mean they're biased. You're another one of those people who seem to think that only they know what is good and whats not and anyone who likes a different movie/music/book than you somehow lacks something as a human being. That's pretty unfortunate.
What is unfortunate is people who feel the need to avoid any form of conformity whatsoever to the point that they don't enjoy a popular movie--on all its levels, because they are there and do exist in the film--and feel the need to bash others for it.
Check your superiority complex at the door. Trendy counterculturalism is dying.
Next.
I didn't really leave the movie knowing anything particularly new about the "Matrix" and the position of the human race was not particularly different at the end than the beginning.
Give me a break. The ending completely threw out the assumptions of the first movie. The One and the Prophecy were simply a means of control, to reload the Matrix and rebuild Zion for another cycle. Everything is suddenly thrown into question, including the motives of the Oracle.
Now there are only 24 hours left until Zion is permanently destroyed, and we are also left dealing with the fact that the Matrix will be suffering a system crash soon, killing everyone connected to it. And that's not different from the beginning?
Oh, thanks. Now I'm stuck with burden of proof?
How are we to have a discussion if you don't give your reasons for disagreeing with the fact that there are philosophical references in the movie that you, for whatever reason, choose to ignore?
Corporate Mofo certainly doesnt justify it, why do they get off so easy? I'm sorry, I dont accept something to be true because 2 numbers match up, and a website I've never heard of says its true.
The Wachowskis are well-known for using these sorts of philosophical and religious sources for the Matrix movies. I assume you were unaware.
Why? It's interesting you don't give a reason to call it lame. Clearly, you have no reasoning behind your argument.
It was lame and flat because, quite frankly, it was a bizarre attempt at some sort of mocking point that didn't address anything. Of course Neo doesn't represent a soda. How odd.
Next.
Nobody said the philosophy in the Matrix was necessarily deep. It's all about references and implications. Read the articles.
Next.
Did I argue otherwise?
You question the motivation of the movie's philosophy because you can't accept that such a pop culture film would be genuine in its attempts. Fair enough, though the Wachowskis are known for what they do. Considering how inaccessible Matrix Reloaded actually is, I'm surprised anyone could be suspicious of its motives.
Many will consider that a cop-out; however, considering the upcoming Matrix Online game takes place after the events of Revolutions, that is a valid possibility.
Written, it is "ass." Don't worry; it is okay to be wrong.
Where they made the sequels doesn't matter in this discussion.
Next.
I, too, doubt the theories that Zion is another Matrix. It is being brought up due to Neo's apparent real-world powers, which I think stem from an entirely different reason. I don't think an EMP triggered the dropping of the Sentinels. It seemed clear that it was Neo raising his hand and physically stopping them himself. We'll have to wait for the explanation.
Trendiness sums it up nicely. People with superiority complexes. As they say, it is just a movie, but sadly they do not follow their own advice.
Luckily, the simple idea that someone should actually read what they have decided to express has been around much longer. Especially if the post is a criticism of somebody else's expressions.
Strike a nerve, did I? Mission accomplished.
People don't ignore it; it's an obvious possibility. However, there are other more likely reasons for Neo's powers in the real world, likely stemming from his connection to Agent Smith.
If Zion were another Matrix, there would be no reason to drill down and destroy it physically; simply killing off those particular crops of humans in the pod rooms would be sufficient. However, there is no way to be sure until seeing the rest of the story in November.
You feel threatened by a popular movie holding such meaning to the masses. It is okay; conformity is not necessarily vulnerabilty.
Next.
Sadly, it is true.
You are simply backpedaling because you made a silly mistake when criticising my own posts. I am here to point out the amusement of it.
You nailed it. There is a fear of conformity running rampant these days, and because the Matrix had such an impact on geek and--heaven forbid--non-geek crowds alike, there is the idea that it is wrong to enjoy it on any level, especially anything that lends some sort of intellectual basis to it.
Nobody is claiming the Matrix is a college philosophy textbook. But the references in the films are there to be discussed. For some reason, lots of people feel the need to point out that the Matrix glosses over a lot of deeper philosophy out there in the field, which is something nobody claimed otherwise to begin with. I find it amusing.
To the uptights: They are fun action films that base their structure and plot on a lot of different philosophical works. Let people have fun with it, since you are unable to.
The philosophical depths of the movie are certainly there, as evidenced by cast interviews (Hugo Weaving had to ask for the books of German philosophers to understand some scenes). There are specific references to certain texts which are undeniable.
Whether or not you like the rest of the movie is understandable (though one must keep in mind that Reloaded is being treated as the first half of one whole movie).
I am simply amused at people who find a few philosophical references and suddenly can't post fast enough to decry them as superficial and "junk food" so they can feed their superiority complex simply because they read some philosophy books in college. Obviously, a two hour movie is not going to go to the same depths of a textbook, and nobody is claiming that it is. However, the movie raises questions and implications that many people enjoy discussing--including experts in the field, which, for some reason, seems to threaten the counterculturalists around here who hate anything that lends credence to the philosophical questions raised by the Matrix (but, strangely enough, love Star Wars).
I speak smugly because I am right.
Mocking what is clearly there in the movie is snobby elitism. Many here simply refuse to look at the movies on that level because it has guns and leather in it. They are much too uptight, so I like to point it out to them.
Everybody "gets" that they're just fun movies with CG and wire-based kung fu. But it is undeniable fact that there are certain messages being instilled into these movies for a reason. There's nothing wrong with discussing them, particularly since these movies are now such a huge part of pop culture--our generation's Star Wars, so to speak.
As a matter of fact, I'm surprised so many people are against the idea of smart films. These same people are the ones who go around decrying shallow pop culture, and yet when something comes along that breaks the mold, they mock people who discuss it. It's lame and ineffective (and sadly predictable) and is a result of the cynical counterculturalism so prevalent today, mostly due to the internet.
Like I've said before, I refuse to take anything seriously that spouts such nonsense as "Neo's five previous incarnations represent the Five Books of Moses that make up the Old Testament."
Why not? It's interesting you don't give a reason to call it nonsense. Clearly, you have no reasoning behind your argument. You just don't like the movie. To ignore the Gnostic references in the movie is "insane."
Insane... I suppose them calling Neo the "One" means he represents a fictional soft drink, correct?
Wow, that was lame and fell flat.
Next.
I'm sure some of it is on the money, but that doesn't obviate the larger problems--we don't care about the people in a real way, the writing is super clunky, the acting is pretty poor... ...but to the guy at Mofo, it's all because the "unenlightened" don't realize the subtle brilliance.
Okay, so your problems aren't the philosophy, but instead the movie's presentation. I thought your argument was about the philosophical underpinnings? Turns out you just don't like the movie period. It all makes sense now.
Like I said, there are people who just hate to like popular films. Some website points out the obvious philosophical references in the movie, and now you mock him for ignoring the "larger problems," of which you never mentioned or seemed to have a problem with in the first place. I love misinformed bias because it is so easy to point out.
Next.
I do it because it ruffles people like you. Incidentally, spelling mistakes undermine your posts as well.
Next.
What do you mean "seriously?" If there is serious deeper meaning behind it--and there is--people will discuss it. Do you mean that because it's an action film, what it may gleam will by default be of lesser value than, say, a textbook? You would be wrong in that regard.
My point is that Anonymous Cowards like yourself must bitch to others about "sitting on your arse" for watching a movie and enjoying the deeper parts.
1.) People who use "arse" instead of "ass" are idiots.
2.) You are sitting on your ass flaming someone about the Matrix on Slashdot. Please re-examine your life.
3.) The concern is of anti-intellectualism. You were wrong.
Next.
If you want an intelligent discussion of philosophy, read a book you lazy fucks.
That statement at the end proved to me that you are simply a trendy counterculturalist who can't stand the fact that some action movies may also have some meaningful references behind them that people enjoy. Because they're popular in our culture, you can't let yourself into these films because you'd feel like a vulnerable conformist, so you must play the part of the snobby philosophist who feels threatened that people are talking about the purposely placed philosophical references in some popular films. "Ugh! It's not a book, it's an action movie! My whole worldview is threatened!"
It's sad in a way that you are so insecure. If you really didn't care about the movies, you wouldn't care about people liking them either.
Everybody knows it's an action movie with people in leather. It's also fun to discuss the intended philosophical meanings and implications behind many of the scenes, philosophical meanings that experts in the field are discussing with a straight face--in BOOKS.
Next.