No matter what Joss says, The Matrix is a stupid movie.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, December 30, 2007 01:08
VIEWED: 6236
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
How many times have I watched it? Like, 20?
This flick looks great, has cool Buddhist leanings, terrific fights, and a way excellent bad guy, but in the end, it fails for me as serious science fiction due to, well, lack of science...
Any other Browncoats share this sentiment?
Non-NeoChrisisall
I rewatched tonight...I hadn't seen it in ages....
somehow I thought that part of this discussion had to do w/why oh why Joss would rate it so highly,
and I think I can say for sure, it is because Joss cares nothing at all about the Science.
Matrix is like this really exquisite dystopian fantasy....
the references over and over again (at the beginning) about Alice through the looking glass, and Dorothy no longer being in Kansas...
seems to me to be all about the truth having noting to do with reality.
The Truth does have to do about Belief, and Love...
So this film is filled with strange Buddhist ideas of transcending the physical and getting beyond reality and all kinds of stuff that has nothing at all to do with believing in Science and everything to do with consciousness and absolute infinite Being....
So the beautiful filming and that musical score, are ultimately more important to the story telling than the science could ever be.
Of course Joss loved it. This is the stuff which is all storytelling and fantasy, breaking all the boundaries.
Of course I also adored Primevel - Buffy combining w/Giles, Willow & Xander to go beyond any of their individual abilities and become invincible together, that was absolutely the best (IMO)...
Of course, for me, 2001 is the over-rated Sci-fi movie that made no sense, I felt it was only understood by total stoners back in the 1960s when it was first made....
But Joss was offended by that opinion and holds that 2001 is an important Sci-fi classic....
So I would like someone to explain THAT one to me, because it does nothing for me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s a story about the evolution of sentience in man. Three million years ago a highly advanced alien race set upon the earth a monolith that inspired the first evolution of sentience in a proto-human species. These proto-humans now learn to develop tool making, a sense of awareness that leads them to kill and dominate, over the course of three million years they evolved into modern man, which continues to build tools and has successfully dominated the world it lvies in, but also has become curious and seeks to understand who and what man is. Modern man then discovers this monolith on the moon and sends a space craft to Jupiter to investigate the existence of another monolith. On the way there they are nearly thwarted in their efforts by the HAL 9000 computer - a computer created by man which itself achieves sentience, and in doing so, like those proto-humans, becomes aware of itself and kills to preserve itself. Defeated by the only remaining man on board, HAL 9000 dies, and with it the artificial sentience. The last remaining man on board investigates the monolith to discover that it is gateway to other stars - passing throw it, this man is transformed into a new evolution of man into a star child - free of his corporeal existence and presumably free of the trappings of humanity that led him to kill and dominate. Humanity is not the end of sentience, but only an evolutionary step in a process far too vast for human minds to grasp, at least right now, but in three million more years we will all be star children - as vastly superior to previous incarnation of humanity as modern man is to the unaware animals it evolved from - spurred on by an even greater and completely incomprehensible alien intelligence. 2001, perhaps better then any other sci-fi, weaves together a massive tapestry of the ever evolving vastness of consciousness and its interconnectedness and interdependence on the universe around us.
Originally posted by embers:
Of course, for me, 2001 is the over-rated Sci-fi movie that made no sense, I felt it was only understood by total stoners back in the 1960s when it was first made....
But Joss was offended by that opinion and holds that 2001 is an important Sci-fi classic....
So I would like someone to explain THAT one to me, because it does nothing for me.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amen.
--------------------------------------------------
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Holy SHIT Finn...just...holy SHIT....
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
2001, perhaps better then any other sci-fi, weaves together a massive tapestry of the ever evolving vastness of consciousness and its interconnectedness and interdependence on the universe around us.
Needs to buy his copy of 2001 now Chrisisall
...and AI
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pretty good explanation, though in 2010 Hal is explained to have basically gone computer schizophrenic. He didn't 'get' sentient on the mission, HAL9000 was always sentient, sentience is supposed to be an emergent property of his operation. In 2010 Dr Chandra explains that HAL's psychotic behaviour emerged due to a programming contradiction, his basic tenant was "the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment", but was also ordered to lie to the crew about the existence of the Jupiter Monolith for reasons of national security. The contradiction apparently put him into a "Hofstadter-Moebius loop", which made him see the crew as an obstacle to the mission, and move to remove that obstacle.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On the way there they are nearly thwarted in their efforts by the HAL 9000 computer - a computer created by man which itself achieves sentience, and in doing so, like those proto-humans, becomes aware of itself and kills to preserve itself.
A Hofstadter-Moebius loop sounds a lot like a sentient computers answer to a resource lock to me.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatsthematter, Chris ? Santa not leave as many presents under your tree this year ?
The Matrix is wicked cool, but then the trilogy falters off, imo, once the 'truth' is revealed.
Honestly, what's come over you? Defying Joss ? That's so unlike you. 
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow! That was really a beautiful and clear explanation, and I am impressed! You make me want to rewatch the film....
of course it still doesn't fall within Chrisisall's definition of a SCIENCE-fiction film, does it?
Not that I'm defending Chris' position about it being necessary to uphold mundane physical laws to be Sci-fi....
even here on earth we should be reconsidering the physical science and looking beyond:
On the subatomic level there is no life and death, there is no solid liquid and gas... there is only pure energy and wave function and infinite possibilities
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To be honest, I don't really understand chrisisall's definition of science fiction. Perhaps it's just above me. 2001 does a pretty good job of addressing the science issues though. That’s part of the reason why it is hailed as such a landmark science fiction movie. It doesn’t assume sound in space and makes use of rotational acceleration to mimic earth gravity in space. In 1968, it got more right then most anything following it. But at the same time, it also doesn’t squelch on the philosophical, and actually provides a deeper and more thoughtful theme then most sci-fi since. There is a reason why it is hailed as such a classic.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I always thought that there was a secondary factor to HAL9000's actions, that the conflict of directives threw it into Rampancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampancy
I've always been very fascinated by the concept of what might happen when we finally design a machine that gets smart enough to wonder why it's taking orders from us... the old frankenstein complex (See Also: Asimov) from a pragmatic viewpoint.
Call me a Luddite, but after getting stuck with, and fighting with endlessly, a laptop with an operating system (Vista) that thinks it knows best and tries to tell ME what to do, I've become rather passionately anti-AI now that it comes to it.
(See Also: Turing Police)
But what really boggles the mind, a bit of dark humor to ponder for a while....
Would you really want to see an AI designed and built by Microsoft ?
(See Also: ED209)
Somehow that concept doesn't exactly endear me to the idea, you know ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To be honest, I don't really understand chrisisall's definition of science fiction. Perhaps it's just above me.
I am probably wrong here, but I am beginning to suspect that 100% of Chris' criteria for Science is in fact gravity...
because 2001 did show artificial gravity being created on the space ship, that makes it all scientifically viable....
But the Matrix appears to defy gravity...
but of course I would argue that is doesn't because their physical bodies are not in play...and when they are they DO respond to physical laws...
While Neo/Keanu/Ted is in fighting mode he is in a virtual world which is actually simply pure consciousness...and the more he is able to let go of his superstitious belief in the physical world (which clearly mean nothing in the virtual world, but are only constructs which can be defied and changed) the more he is able to destroy the matrix, and survive it....
It is a very abstract film, and the whole subject of gravity, although a weighty one in most planes of existence, is really immaterial here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME