This is exactly why I loved "Matrix:Revolutions" so much.
Everyone "knew" that the Matrix would be dismantled and humankind would win over the machines. The only question was "how."
Then we saw the movie. Love it or hate it, you can't deny you were surprised. I loved that the Wachowskis had the stones to go against what Hollywood has conditioned us to expect. I love movies that don't have happy endings.
I disagree. In both cases, you're simply taking in the fruits of someone else's imagination. Though in the former, I concede, you usually instinctively put forth a small amount of mental effort in conjuring up visuals to go along with what you're reading.
I don't buy the party line that reading is some intensely cerebral, mind-expanding activity for the intellectual elite. Perhaps if you were reading Hawking's "Brief History of Time", but if you're just reading "LotR", which really is just one step up from the pulp trash at grocery pharmacy checkouts, how is this making you a better/smarter person? It's just a silly adventure. Perhaps an interesting, engaging adventure, but it's not teaching you anything or making you a better person.
Much like most movies.
Of course, movies that are documentaries can expand your mind, like books that are textbooks can do the same (or biographies, etc.). But saying that reading in general is good for you is nanny-state, PC-crap that I stopped swalling once I became literate.
First of all, the write-up is misleading. We are nowhere near having machines that can sing indistinguishably from humans.
Secondly, even if we did have such synthesizers, it certainly wouldn't put conventional artists out of work. For example, we have computer-controlled tools and painting equipment that can create flawless furniture, or paint a perfect, photo-realistic portrait.
But what kind of furniture/paintings are pulling in the big-bucks at auctions? That's right - the ones made by humans. "Hand-made" furniture costs quite a premium over the "perfect," mass-produced stuff. Trust me - my wife and I are trying to furnish a house.:)
People don't just like Eminem for the sounds he puts on his CDs - they like his persona, his attitude, the ambiance he embodies. They're buying Eminem, not just some tones, optically encoded onto a slab of plastic-laminated aluminum. It's the artist that sells, every bit as much as the work itself.
I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. You most certainly DO need to be "fit" to be an "athlete." That's what the definition of "Athlete" is.
athlete (noun): a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina
Just because someone does something professionally doesn't make them an athlete. None of the things you listed are "sports," (Darts. Bowls. Archery. Billiards. Skeet Shooting) and none of the people who compete in them are "athletes".
Chess is not a sport. NASCAR is not a sport. Baseball is maybe, arguably, just barely a sport. Any game/competition in which the competitors on the winning team can be as grossly un-fit and out of shape as baseball is very questionably a "sport." Poker is not a sport. Bowling is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. They are all hard, they all require practice, and they all require skill, but none of them require exceptional physical training or ability to excel in.
I repeat: I'm not saying they don't require skill - they obviously, most definitely, do. But that in and of itself is not enough to make something a "sport" and does not make the competitor an "athlete." For something to be a sport, there must be some sort of physical strength/stamina factor that directly affects one's ability to excel at the activity.
You're confused. The original poster was saying you can claim ownership of a trademark, if it is a made-up word, and he's right. You supported his argument, by correctly pointing out that you cannot create and market "Coca-Cola Massage oil" - because "Coca-Cola" is a made-up word, created by the Coca-Cola company. It is a made up word, thus, they can claim ownership of it. That's what the original guy said.
However, if a word is not made-up, they cannot claim ownership of it. You again chose a perfect example, by saying that Ford Motor Company cannot come after a church using the word "Fnord." Indeed, it goes beyond that, in that Ford Motor Company couldn't even object if the church used the word "Ford" (spelled correctly), or even if another company came into being and started using the name "Ford." Because "Ford" is not a made-up word - it is a real name.
For example, see the Ford Modeling Agency. No legal battles there, because FoMoCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in demanding that they stop using the name "Ford."
The problem is that all the best names are already taken. Some are taken by real companies selling real products, others are taken by obscure one-man-shop programmers. RedHat wanted a cool name for this new product, and realized they'd have better odds picking a fight with a ragtag bunch of students than with a real company with real resources to invest in a legal battle.
I think they're right. Seriously, all the best names are taken. If you're going to create a new product, the best you can hope for is that whoever has already created a product with that name didn't really do much with it, and will be willing to sell you the name (or not put up a fight when you take it anyway).
Also, immediately sell your financed house, and buy something that you own outright: something with a lot of land, and little house
Bzzzzt! Sorry, there's the flaw in your argument, right there. Any idea how much land costs? Around here (Eastern Ontario, Canada), even a few acres of treed land with a tiny bungalow on it will set you back hundreds of thousands of dollars. How exactly am I supposed to "own that outright" any faster than I'm already paying off my sub-urban cookie-cutter home on a sliver of municipal land? The 4-bedroom home I'm in now is actually cheaper than trying to buy up a few acres of land in a rural area.
Lesson to be learned: Land is expensive. VERY expensive.
This is the type of headline that spins the truth to grab your attention. It neglects to point out that the rebels resisting the US occupation are not technically in the (now defunct) Iraqi military, and thus can only be categorized as "civilizians," despite the fact that they are somewhat organized, very well armed, and are shooting at your soliders.
There aren't too many Iraqi Republican Guard grunts left suited up, patrolling Iraq.
What about weavers? They couldn't weave forever. Eventually something came along to replace them.
Bogus analogy. The weavers were replaced by machines, which were invented, built, and run by other Americans. The end result was the money stayed in the US.
The outsourcing of IT jobs is analogous to the weaving still being done by hand, just by an Indian instead of an American.
I live in the suburbs (because I can afford a house there)
Thanks for making my case for me there. Sort of the whole point, isn't it? I buy $50 meals in restaurants each night... because I can afford it. (Not really) That doesn't exactly prove that eating out costs $50/night.
Uh, you just made his point for him. You say people should forego a car and take public transit. But that implies that they live in an area that is built-up enough to warrant public transit, which means their housing costs are tremendously expensive (much moreso than if they'd bought a car).
BackWater, TN doesn't have bus service, but the houses are cheap. Seattle has a great transit system, but do you think you can find housing for $100,000? Not likely!
Wouldn't they have to be "open source" bodyguards though? What would that mean, exactly? Would they publish maps of their transportation routes on their web site? Would they wear their guns on the outsides of their jackets?
Also, if there's no non-tourist economy in these towns, it seems to me that people ought to leave
Good idea! And on that note, we should also begin the process of abandoning Las Vegas, the Bahamas, and every other tourist destination that survives solely by... well, by being a tourist destination!
Maybe, but in general, CEO's have invested a lot of time and money into their company, and taken a lot of risks to reap the rewards. They are generally highly educated and very savvy in the business world.
Athletes have simply wasted thousands of hours mastering hitting/kicking/boucing a ball.
Executives have earned their salaries through hard work, risk, and education.
Athletes have achieved their absurd salaries through dropping out of school, loafing around the playground, and in many cases, simply being lucky. Who deserves $5 million/year for playing a *game*? No one.
Do you wear contacts? Do you whiten your teeth? Ever have braces? Ever use a spray-on/rub-on tan? Ever colour your hair? Ever use clip-on jewelry? Ever use a fake tattoo? Ever have any birthmarks removed? Do you shave?
Who cares if it's fake if it looks better than the real thing? People use all kinds of artificial means in the name of physical vanity. Does that make it wrong? Of course not.
The only thing I wasn't certain on is whether Neo is dead or returned to battery status.
Neo is without a doubt dead. This part was obvious.
What's interesting is that we should have seen it coming a mile away. Even after the first movie, people noted the "Christ" allegory, and, well, we all know what happened to Christ. He died to save humanity.
Also, the reason we know that Neo is conclusively dead is that Smith is dead too. As we learned in "Reloaded," from the Oracle, "when a program no longer has a purpose, it is deleted." Smith's purpose was to kill Neo. When that purpose was finally realized, Smith was deleted. So the reason we know Neo is, in fact, dead is because Smith was deleted.
Neo has a mysterious power over the sentinels, no explanation.
He has a connection with the machines. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Right now, you are broadcasting brain waves, albeit very weakly. If I were to put electrodes around your head (without penetrating your skull), we could read your brain waves. You ARE broadcasting brain waves.
Why is it so hard to believe that maybe the machines could read these waves, and even communicate in reverse, thus completing a loop similar to a Matrix connection?
Neo has a mysterious power to see "yellow code" outside of the Matrix. No explanation.
Same explanation as above - Neo is "in tune" with the machines and is reading and communicating with them, on a subconscious level. Bane(Smith), of course, is too, and that's why Neo can see him, but no Trinity.
The machines are just about to destroy Zion, they turn back. No explanation.
Uhm, did you even see the movie? They stopped because Neo brokered a truce. He agreed to stop Smith if the machines would leave the humans alone. Neo succeeded, so the machines left the humans alone. This one was obvious - how could you have missed this?
The people in war mechas are totally exposed and don't even bother to wear a helmet. No explanation.
Perhaps they realized what a trivial amount of extra protection helmets would have provided, and determined it wasn't worth the effort to make them.
[Why must a movie have a conclusion?] Because I paid to see a movie.
That's so funny, especially considering your comment in another post, above:
Go on. Say whatever you want about the LOTR movies.
Well, considering that neither of the first to LotR movies had a conclusion, and noting that I did, in fact "paid" to see them, do I feel cheated out of 2 endings? Of course not. But that's different, right? I'm not sure how, but you're clearly the Tolien fanboy, perhaps you'll explain it to me.
You'd hade "Memento." It's a very unconventional movie. It makes you think a bit. It doesn't fit the mold sanctioned by Hollywood. It's a fantastic, imaginative, spectacular movie, but I'm sure you'd hate it. For one thing, it has two of the same actors as "The Matrix" in it. Best just stay away.
Their story has plot holes.
I assert that there isn't one single plot hole in the entire Matrix trilogy.
I also assert that there are multiple plot holes in the LotR, and I never even read the books. I've only seen the movies once each. Nevertheless, the plot holes are there. Like when that dragon thing saves Gandolf. Where the heck did that thing come from? Why don't they use it to take Frodo to Mount Whatsitsname, instead of having him trudge through all that danger?
They are bad story tellers. They do not tell their story very well.
On the contrary, they are excellent story tellers - you simply did not like the story they told. They told an interesting story that is open for debate, while you clearly prefer "Humpty-Dumpty" style stories. No one questions that Humpty did, in fact, fall down. It's a fact. Excellent storytelling at its finest, eh?
"I really, really, don't understand why you'd consider a film with an excessive number of plot holes to be a bad film".
Again, I challenge you to cite these mysterious "plot holes." There weren't any.
So why pay to see the movie when you'll be writing it inside your head anyway?
Why pay to attend a Philosophy class when you could probably come up with most of the same answers and conclusions through your own independant thought anyway? Conclusion: Philosophy classes are a waste of time.
I'm sorry you didn't like the movie, but I thought it was a brilliant way to conclude the trilogy. Evenyone was expecting the "Matrix-within-a-matrix" cop-out, and if they had done that, then hooooo-boy! Then there'd be criticism. But instead, they chose an extremely innovative, imaginative, unconventional ending. I loved it.
We're so jaded with our happy endings that we've come to expect them. Of course Bruce Willis is going to destroy the asteroid. Of course Will Smith will defeat the aliens. Of course the Terminator will save John Conner. Of course Neo will defeat the machines. Oh... ooops... guess not.
I loved it.
You must hate Shakespeare and Spielberg then. They love the unhappy endings, too.
The answer is that writers-directors did not know enough philosophy to answer those questions.
That's so exactly the opposite of reality that it's actually funny. If you knew anything about the Wachowskis, you'd know that they are, in fact, both very well schooled in philosophy. Well enough to travel Europe giving speeches on the topics.
How 'bout you?
You sure you maybe just didn't "get" it? It sure is easy to say THEY'RE the dumb ones though, isn't it? Better that than admit that maybe YOU are the intellectual inferior to THEM, eh?
Right, he also doesn't mention how raising the average income to 150K just makes the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer.
I never get tired of that cliche. Except at times like this, when it's obviously wrong. If the AVERAGE income rose from $35K to $150K, then the poor would also be getting "richer," most likely. Though I admit it would mean more if they'd said "median income" instead of "average income."
In "Reloaded," the Oracle tells us that "when a program no longer has a purpose, it is deleted." Smith's purpose was to kill Neo. Neo realized this, and let Smith kill him, thus ensuring Smith's demise, too.
Handwaving seems to work on you. There was nothing subtle in the movie.
Evidently there was, because you seem to have a lot of questions that are very easily explained.
We have lasers, let's not use them
The lasers were short-range cutters, not long range weapons. The only time we ever see the sentinels using those lasers is when they're trying to cut into something (a ship, the doors, etc.). Would you use a welder as a long-range weapon? Same thing.
Where did that damn't light came from after the EMP was fired and before power supplie was restored?
From all the burning wreckage from the battle, of course.
This one was easy! As we learned in "Reloaded," from the Oracle, "Once a program has fulfilled its purpose, it is deleted." Smith's purpose was to kill Neo. Once that purpose was realized, Smith was deleted.
An interesting side effect of this is that this explanation removes any doubt about Neo's death. I've heard speculation that Neo is just unconscious at the end of Revolutions, but that's wrong. He has to be dead. If he wasn't, then Smith wouldn't have been destroyed. The two are directly related.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly why I loved "Matrix:Revolutions" so much.
Everyone "knew" that the Matrix would be dismantled and humankind would win over the machines. The only question was "how."
Then we saw the movie. Love it or hate it, you can't deny you were surprised. I loved that the Wachowskis had the stones to go against what Hollywood has conditioned us to expect. I love movies that don't have happy endings.
I disagree. In both cases, you're simply taking in the fruits of someone else's imagination. Though in the former, I concede, you usually instinctively put forth a small amount of mental effort in conjuring up visuals to go along with what you're reading.
I don't buy the party line that reading is some intensely cerebral, mind-expanding activity for the intellectual elite. Perhaps if you were reading Hawking's "Brief History of Time", but if you're just reading "LotR", which really is just one step up from the pulp trash at grocery pharmacy checkouts, how is this making you a better/smarter person? It's just a silly adventure. Perhaps an interesting, engaging adventure, but it's not teaching you anything or making you a better person.
Much like most movies.
Of course, movies that are documentaries can expand your mind, like books that are textbooks can do the same (or biographies, etc.). But saying that reading in general is good for you is nanny-state, PC-crap that I stopped swalling once I became literate.
First of all, the write-up is misleading. We are nowhere near having machines that can sing indistinguishably from humans.
:)
Secondly, even if we did have such synthesizers, it certainly wouldn't put conventional artists out of work. For example, we have computer-controlled tools and painting equipment that can create flawless furniture, or paint a perfect, photo-realistic portrait.
But what kind of furniture/paintings are pulling in the big-bucks at auctions? That's right - the ones made by humans. "Hand-made" furniture costs quite a premium over the "perfect," mass-produced stuff. Trust me - my wife and I are trying to furnish a house.
People don't just like Eminem for the sounds he puts on his CDs - they like his persona, his attitude, the ambiance he embodies. They're buying Eminem, not just some tones, optically encoded onto a slab of plastic-laminated aluminum. It's the artist that sells, every bit as much as the work itself.
You do not need to be fit to be an athelete.
I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. You most certainly DO need to be "fit" to be an "athlete." That's what the definition of "Athlete" is.
athlete (noun): a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina
Just because someone does something professionally doesn't make them an athlete. None of the things you listed are "sports," (Darts. Bowls. Archery. Billiards. Skeet Shooting) and none of the people who compete in them are "athletes".
Chess is not a sport. NASCAR is not a sport. Baseball is maybe, arguably, just barely a sport. Any game/competition in which the competitors on the winning team can be as grossly un-fit and out of shape as baseball is very questionably a "sport." Poker is not a sport. Bowling is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. They are all hard, they all require practice, and they all require skill, but none of them require exceptional physical training or ability to excel in.
I repeat: I'm not saying they don't require skill - they obviously, most definitely, do. But that in and of itself is not enough to make something a "sport" and does not make the competitor an "athlete." For something to be a sport, there must be some sort of physical strength/stamina factor that directly affects one's ability to excel at the activity.
</RANT>
You're confused. The original poster was saying you can claim ownership of a trademark, if it is a made-up word, and he's right. You supported his argument, by correctly pointing out that you cannot create and market "Coca-Cola Massage oil" - because "Coca-Cola" is a made-up word, created by the Coca-Cola company. It is a made up word, thus, they can claim ownership of it. That's what the original guy said.
However, if a word is not made-up, they cannot claim ownership of it. You again chose a perfect example, by saying that Ford Motor Company cannot come after a church using the word "Fnord." Indeed, it goes beyond that, in that Ford Motor Company couldn't even object if the church used the word "Ford" (spelled correctly), or even if another company came into being and started using the name "Ford." Because "Ford" is not a made-up word - it is a real name.
For example, see the Ford Modeling Agency. No legal battles there, because FoMoCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in demanding that they stop using the name "Ford."
The problem is that all the best names are already taken. Some are taken by real companies selling real products, others are taken by obscure one-man-shop programmers. RedHat wanted a cool name for this new product, and realized they'd have better odds picking a fight with a ragtag bunch of students than with a real company with real resources to invest in a legal battle.
I think they're right. Seriously, all the best names are taken. If you're going to create a new product, the best you can hope for is that whoever has already created a product with that name didn't really do much with it, and will be willing to sell you the name (or not put up a fight when you take it anyway).
Also, immediately sell your financed house, and buy something that you own outright: something with a lot of land, and little house
Bzzzzt! Sorry, there's the flaw in your argument, right there. Any idea how much land costs? Around here (Eastern Ontario, Canada), even a few acres of treed land with a tiny bungalow on it will set you back hundreds of thousands of dollars. How exactly am I supposed to "own that outright" any faster than I'm already paying off my sub-urban cookie-cutter home on a sliver of municipal land? The 4-bedroom home I'm in now is actually cheaper than trying to buy up a few acres of land in a rural area.
Lesson to be learned: Land is expensive. VERY expensive.
This is the type of headline that spins the truth to grab your attention. It neglects to point out that the rebels resisting the US occupation are not technically in the (now defunct) Iraqi military, and thus can only be categorized as "civilizians," despite the fact that they are somewhat organized, very well armed, and are shooting at your soliders.
There aren't too many Iraqi Republican Guard grunts left suited up, patrolling Iraq.
What about weavers? They couldn't weave forever. Eventually something came along to replace them.
Bogus analogy. The weavers were replaced by machines, which were invented, built, and run by other Americans. The end result was the money stayed in the US.
The outsourcing of IT jobs is analogous to the weaving still being done by hand, just by an Indian instead of an American.
I live in the suburbs (because I can afford a house there)
Thanks for making my case for me there. Sort of the whole point, isn't it? I buy $50 meals in restaurants each night... because I can afford it. (Not really) That doesn't exactly prove that eating out costs $50/night.
Uh, you just made his point for him. You say people should forego a car and take public transit. But that implies that they live in an area that is built-up enough to warrant public transit, which means their housing costs are tremendously expensive (much moreso than if they'd bought a car).
BackWater, TN doesn't have bus service, but the houses are cheap. Seattle has a great transit system, but do you think you can find housing for $100,000? Not likely!
It's an "either/or" situation, my friend.
Wouldn't they have to be "open source" bodyguards though? What would that mean, exactly? Would they publish maps of their transportation routes on their web site? Would they wear their guns on the outsides of their jackets?
Apparently, it can run web servers too, although obviously not very well ...
Also, if there's no non-tourist economy in these towns, it seems to me that people ought to leave
... well, by being a tourist destination!
Good idea! And on that note, we should also begin the process of abandoning Las Vegas, the Bahamas, and every other tourist destination that survives solely by
Let it go.
The public associates "hacker" with bad. They always have, and they always will. People like you who try to muddy the waters aren't helping.
You're like the feminists who want to eliminate the word "woman" and instead persuade everyone to migrate to "womyn" instead.
Maybe, but in general, CEO's have invested a lot of time and money into their company, and taken a lot of risks to reap the rewards. They are generally highly educated and very savvy in the business world.
Athletes have simply wasted thousands of hours mastering hitting/kicking/boucing a ball.
Executives have earned their salaries through hard work, risk, and education.
Athletes have achieved their absurd salaries through dropping out of school, loafing around the playground, and in many cases, simply being lucky. Who deserves $5 million/year for playing a *game*? No one.
Yes, I have equal disdain for big-ticket actors.
it's not real ... ho hum
Do you wear contacts? Do you whiten your teeth? Ever have braces? Ever use a spray-on/rub-on tan? Ever colour your hair? Ever use clip-on jewelry? Ever use a fake tattoo? Ever have any birthmarks removed? Do you shave?
Who cares if it's fake if it looks better than the real thing? People use all kinds of artificial means in the name of physical vanity. Does that make it wrong? Of course not.
Add to that complete and utter predictability of everything that happens,
Ha ha ha! Yeeeeeeahh... that was the big problem with "Revolutions": too predictable. Everyone saw this ending coming a mile away, didn't they.
Not.
The only thing I wasn't certain on is whether Neo is dead or returned to battery status.
Neo is without a doubt dead. This part was obvious.
What's interesting is that we should have seen it coming a mile away. Even after the first movie, people noted the "Christ" allegory, and, well, we all know what happened to Christ. He died to save humanity.
Also, the reason we know that Neo is conclusively dead is that Smith is dead too. As we learned in "Reloaded," from the Oracle, "when a program no longer has a purpose, it is deleted." Smith's purpose was to kill Neo. When that purpose was finally realized, Smith was deleted. So the reason we know Neo is, in fact, dead is because Smith was deleted.
Neo has a mysterious power over the sentinels, no explanation.
He has a connection with the machines. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Right now, you are broadcasting brain waves, albeit very weakly. If I were to put electrodes around your head (without penetrating your skull), we could read your brain waves. You ARE broadcasting brain waves.
Why is it so hard to believe that maybe the machines could read these waves, and even communicate in reverse, thus completing a loop similar to a Matrix connection?
Neo has a mysterious power to see "yellow code" outside of the Matrix. No explanation.
Same explanation as above - Neo is "in tune" with the machines and is reading and communicating with them, on a subconscious level. Bane(Smith), of course, is too, and that's why Neo can see him, but no Trinity.
The machines are just about to destroy Zion, they turn back. No explanation.
Uhm, did you even see the movie? They stopped because Neo brokered a truce. He agreed to stop Smith if the machines would leave the humans alone. Neo succeeded, so the machines left the humans alone. This one was obvious - how could you have missed this?
The people in war mechas are totally exposed and don't even bother to wear a helmet. No explanation.
Perhaps they realized what a trivial amount of extra protection helmets would have provided, and determined it wasn't worth the effort to make them.
[Why must a movie have a conclusion?] Because I paid to see a movie.
That's so funny, especially considering your comment in another post, above:
Go on. Say whatever you want about the LOTR movies.
Well, considering that neither of the first to LotR movies had a conclusion, and noting that I did, in fact "paid" to see them, do I feel cheated out of 2 endings? Of course not. But that's different, right? I'm not sure how, but you're clearly the Tolien fanboy, perhaps you'll explain it to me.
You'd hade "Memento." It's a very unconventional movie. It makes you think a bit. It doesn't fit the mold sanctioned by Hollywood. It's a fantastic, imaginative, spectacular movie, but I'm sure you'd hate it. For one thing, it has two of the same actors as "The Matrix" in it. Best just stay away.
Their story has plot holes.
I assert that there isn't one single plot hole in the entire Matrix trilogy.
I also assert that there are multiple plot holes in the LotR, and I never even read the books. I've only seen the movies once each. Nevertheless, the plot holes are there. Like when that dragon thing saves Gandolf. Where the heck did that thing come from? Why don't they use it to take Frodo to Mount Whatsitsname, instead of having him trudge through all that danger?
They are bad story tellers. They do not tell their story very well.
On the contrary, they are excellent story tellers - you simply did not like the story they told. They told an interesting story that is open for debate, while you clearly prefer "Humpty-Dumpty" style stories. No one questions that Humpty did, in fact, fall down. It's a fact. Excellent storytelling at its finest, eh?
"I really, really, don't understand why you'd consider a film with an excessive number of plot holes to be a bad film".
Again, I challenge you to cite these mysterious "plot holes." There weren't any.
So why pay to see the movie when you'll be writing it inside your head anyway?
Why pay to attend a Philosophy class when you could probably come up with most of the same answers and conclusions through your own independant thought anyway? Conclusion: Philosophy classes are a waste of time.
I'm sorry you didn't like the movie, but I thought it was a brilliant way to conclude the trilogy. Evenyone was expecting the "Matrix-within-a-matrix" cop-out, and if they had done that, then hooooo-boy! Then there'd be criticism. But instead, they chose an extremely innovative, imaginative, unconventional ending. I loved it.
We're so jaded with our happy endings that we've come to expect them. Of course Bruce Willis is going to destroy the asteroid. Of course Will Smith will defeat the aliens. Of course the Terminator will save John Conner. Of course Neo will defeat the machines. Oh... ooops... guess not.
I loved it.
You must hate Shakespeare and Spielberg then. They love the unhappy endings, too.
The answer is that writers-directors did not know enough philosophy to answer those questions.
That's so exactly the opposite of reality that it's actually funny. If you knew anything about the Wachowskis, you'd know that they are, in fact, both very well schooled in philosophy. Well enough to travel Europe giving speeches on the topics.
How 'bout you?
You sure you maybe just didn't "get" it? It sure is easy to say THEY'RE the dumb ones though, isn't it? Better that than admit that maybe YOU are the intellectual inferior to THEM, eh?
Right, he also doesn't mention how raising the average income to 150K just makes the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer.
I never get tired of that cliche. Except at times like this, when it's obviously wrong. If the AVERAGE income rose from $35K to $150K, then the poor would also be getting "richer," most likely. Though I admit it would mean more if they'd said "median income" instead of "average income."
In "Reloaded," the Oracle tells us that "when a program no longer has a purpose, it is deleted." Smith's purpose was to kill Neo. Neo realized this, and let Smith kill him, thus ensuring Smith's demise, too.
Handwaving seems to work on you. There was nothing subtle in the movie.
Evidently there was, because you seem to have a lot of questions that are very easily explained.
We have lasers, let's not use them
The lasers were short-range cutters, not long range weapons. The only time we ever see the sentinels using those lasers is when they're trying to cut into something (a ship, the doors, etc.). Would you use a welder as a long-range weapon? Same thing.
Where did that damn't light came from after the EMP was fired and before power supplie was restored?
From all the burning wreckage from the battle, of course.
Why did Neo marging with Smith destroy Smith?
This one was easy! As we learned in "Reloaded," from the Oracle, "Once a program has fulfilled its purpose, it is deleted." Smith's purpose was to kill Neo. Once that purpose was realized, Smith was deleted.
An interesting side effect of this is that this explanation removes any doubt about Neo's death. I've heard speculation that Neo is just unconscious at the end of Revolutions, but that's wrong. He has to be dead. If he wasn't, then Smith wouldn't have been destroyed. The two are directly related.