V for Vendetta

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Watching it was the final
proof to me that the W.'s did, indeed, steal Sophia Stewart's story for
the "Matrix".

To begin with, about 15 minutes into the movie, I realized something
which explains perfectly the entire plot of "V". As you may or may not
know, Larry W. has some serious gender confusion issues:

http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=719

The main protagonist of "V" is clearly supposed to represent Larry W.
He struts around the entire film in this horrible woman's wig. His
entire dialog is a rant, a sermon really, against social comformity.

All the intimacy scenes in "V" are between members of the same sex.
Natalie Portman doesn't get to kiss the "hero" until the end of the
movie and, even then, it has to be done through a mask.

There are some critics who have actually praised this movie. I am
wondering how much Warner Bros paid them for that. Yeah, the actors do
an admirable job with what they had to work with. But, a good movie has
to start with a good script and the W.'s didn't deliver on this turkey.
But, no surprise there. The W.'s have been plagiarizing other people's
work since their first film, "Assassins". I ran across the following
old interview where the "boys" actually admit that someone else had to
come in and completely rewrite the story for "Assassins":

http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/interviews/27.html

And that, my friend, is the real reason the studio doesn't let anyone
interview the W.'s anymore ... fear that these two weirdos will spill
the beans about who really wrote "Matrix":

http://www.sophiaoracle.com/index.php

When I went to see "V" there were less than 10 other people in the
other seats. This movie is going down like the Titanic, and I don't
mean the movie by the same name.

Istlota

Gavin Smith

2006-04-21 08:02:20 UTC

Post by i***@earthlink.net
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Watching it was the final
proof to me that the W.'s did, indeed, steal Sophia Stewart's story for
the "Matrix".
To begin with, about 15 minutes into the movie, I realized something
which explains perfectly the entire plot of "V". As you may or may not
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=719
The main protagonist of "V" is clearly supposed to represent Larry W.
He struts around the entire film in this horrible woman's wig.

V's hair is representative of 16th century male fashion - i.e. the kind
of haircut that Guy Fawkes would have had. This comes from David Lloyd's
art, not Larry W's sexual preferences.

Loading Image...

--
Gavin Smith

istlota

2006-04-21 14:01:46 UTC

Whether V's hair is Fawkes-ian is irrelevant.

What you need to consider is why, at this point in their career, when
the studios would fund any project the W.s chose to make a movie of,
they chose to make a movie where a vehicle exists to allow the hero to
work through, on the silver screen, what Larry W. has worked through in
his personal life over the past five years. The gender confusion, his
struggles with women [the love-hate-envy dynamic of it all], and the
mask of a smile to hide the rage he feels in his inner being over
society's willingness to ignore his pain. Make no mistake about it. V.
is not a good guy. He is a terrorist, bent upon destroying society.

V. doesn't change society, he literally blows it up, shredding it into
a million pieces with his sword of truth.

"The pen is mightier than the sword."

We writers may say we write fiction, but in truth we start with some
piece of reality. Sometimes, all it takes is the smallest crumb of
personal experience. Other times, our works creep much closer to
reality.

V.'s obsession with sharp weapons, and the sadistic physical torture
this character went through at the hands of a woman, is an allegory to
Larry W.'s sexual fetishes. I encourage you to read this story from the
Rolling Stone which goes into much detail about Larry W.'s relationship
with his dominatrix mistress, and how that fact has influenced the W.'s
"fiction":

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9138137/the_mystery_of_larry_wachowski?rnd=1145626070127&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212

Istlota

JPM III

2006-04-21 15:42:48 UTC

Post by istlota
Whether V's hair is Fawkes-ian is irrelevant.
What you need to consider is why, at this point in their career, when
the studios would fund any project the W.s chose to make a movie of,
they chose to make a movie where a vehicle exists to allow the hero to
work through, on the silver screen, what Larry W. has worked through in
his personal life over the past five years. The gender confusion, his
struggles with women [the love-hate-envy dynamic of it all], and the
mask of a smile to hide the rage he feels in his inner being over
society's willingness to ignore his pain. Make no mistake about it. V.
is not a good guy. He is a terrorist, bent upon destroying society.
V. doesn't change society, he literally blows it up, shredding it into
a million pieces with his sword of truth.
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
We writers may say we write fiction, but in truth we start with some
piece of reality. Sometimes, all it takes is the smallest crumb of
personal experience. Other times, our works creep much closer to
reality.
V.'s obsession with sharp weapons, and the sadistic physical torture
this character went through at the hands of a woman, is an allegory to
Larry W.'s sexual fetishes. I encourage you to read this story from the
Rolling Stone which goes into much detail about Larry W.'s relationship
with his dominatrix mistress, and how that fact has influenced the W.'s
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9138137/the_mystery_of_larry_wachowski?rnd=1145626070127&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212

We've been well aware of this for month. You should realize that all
artists' works are influenced by those artists personal lives and interests,
and that does not detract from the work itself by any means. Why? Because
the artist's personal life, especially when it's supposed to be private,
should have nothing to do with how an uninvolved audience perceives the
final work. You're digging so much into things irrelevant to the film that
it's tough to take much of your opinion seriously, because you are obviously
biased against the W Brothers.

Then again, you are entitled to your opinion regardless of how you came to
it. I'm just letting you know how I'm filtering it. :)

istlota

2006-04-21 17:55:23 UTC

Post by JPM III
We've been well aware of this for month. You should realize that all
artists' works are influenced by those artists personal lives and interests,
and that does not detract from the work itself by any means. Why? Because
the artist's personal life, especially when it's supposed to be private,
should have nothing to do with how an uninvolved audience perceives the
final work.

There is this scene, in one of Asimov's robot short stories, "Reason".
A robot, QT-1, has logically reasoned out that he must be a prophet
sent by some being he calls the Master to rule mankind. As to why a
robot, who "thinks" in pure logic, could arrive at this completely
wrong conclusion, the man named Powell remarks:

"You can prove any thing you want by coldly logical reasoning - if you
pick the right postulates."

Your response, the way you put it, it sounds so logical, so reasonable.
And, yet, your conclusion is 100% wrong.

To understand my point, begin with thinking back to Van Gogh. His
passion for life, demonstrated by what was clearly an emotional
imbalance, was also the driving influence in his work. Cutting off an
ear to prove your love for a prostitute is not romantic .. it is
insane. And yet, if not for that very passion which drove the man mad,
his work would not have been as memorable.

When an artist's personal proclivities drive him to create a
masterpiece, we call him a genius. But, what about when an artist's
personal life drives him to create poor, sub par, work? When that
happens, only those still cabled to the Hollywood hype machine, those
who cling to their programming instead of "the real world", continue to
chew on something with the consistency of snot and call it steak. Think
of where Cypher's head was at when he betrayed the rest of the
Nebuchadnezzar team. That is where your head is at when it comes to the
Ws. We have been told, by the Hollywood machine, that the Ws are these
geniuses. And, most of us lap up what the machine tells us and accept
it.

And, yet, all around us, if we just pull the cable out the back of our
head and open our eyes, is the proof that the steak is really a big
quivering glob of snot.

The Ws had no successful movie prior to the "Matrix". "Assasins" lost
money. "Bound" lost money and besides that no one I know has even heard
of it, let along seen it. Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a
let down, and that the 3rd "Matrix" was even worse. And now, this
turkey of a movie "V" comes out and it is the worst thing the Ws have
ever been associated with.

Isn't it obvious that something just doesn't smell right about all
this? The fact that no one is allowed to ask the Ws any questions
about their work, or anything else for that matter. The fact that the
crew members of their movies are not even allowed to step within a
certain number of feet from these two weirdos. Isn't it obvious that
the machine is pulling yet another fast one on the children of Zion?

Post by JPM III
You're digging so much into things irrelevant to the film that
it's tough to take much of your opinion seriously, because you are obviously
biased against the W Brothers.

You sound just like him. You know, like Agent Smith. So fair, so
reasonable. Smith never raised his voice. Even when he was ready to put
a serious beat down on Neo, he just calmly said .... "You disappoint
me, Mr. Anderson". You are attempting to do to me what Smith did to
Neo. Remember when Smith said, ever so calmly:

"How can you make a phone call if you can't speak?"

But, unlike Neo in that scene, my lips will not seal themselves shut. I
know that the only power the machine has over me is that which I give
it.

Drill into the impact of what you just said. You said I am digging too
deep into irrelevant things. Yet, this group exists, it's whole purpose
is to dig into anything and everything having to do with the Matrix.
That is what everyone hear does. It is what gets us off. So, the
question remains to be asked .. why does my particular angle of
Matrix-lore raise such a red flag to the true believers?

You discount my opinion because I an "obviously biased against the W
Brothers". And, yet, you are obviously biased _towards_ the W Brothers.
Why should your bias be more acceptable here then mine?

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-04 15:44:16 UTC

Thank you!

Post by istlota
And, yet, your conclusion is 100% wrong.

D'oh!

Post by istlota
To understand my point, begin with thinking back to Van Gogh. His
passion for life, demonstrated by what was clearly an emotional
imbalance, was also the driving influence in his work. Cutting off an
ear to prove your love for a prostitute is not romantic .. it is
insane. And yet, if not for that very passion which drove the man mad,
his work would not have been as memorable.

...and his work might not have been as marketable.

But, keep in mind the power of perspective. If what you believe is insane
becomes just popular enough, it could cross the boundary from the extreme to
the fringes of mainstream, in which case it could arguably be "romantic" ...
whose definition is also subject to perspective.

Post by istlota
When an artist's personal proclivities drive him to create a
masterpiece, we call him a genius. But, what about when an artist's
personal life drives him to create poor, sub par, work? When that
happens, only those still cabled to the Hollywood hype machine, those
who cling to their programming instead of "the real world", continue to
chew on something with the consistency of snot and call it steak.

To use your words...

"Your response, the way you put it, it sounds so logical, so reasonable.
And, yet, your conclusion is 100% wrong."

Think: perspective! And think outside your own for a moment, because yours
is not the only one that exists. (I don't mean to insult you by saying that;
I'm just stating the obvious to make my point clear.)

Granted your point is partially true: people who buy into the Hollywood hype
will graciously consume the spoonfed swill and fervently recommend others to
try it. But that doesn't change the fact that some people simply possess the
beliefs, values, traits, or [insert other relevant noun here] to actually
enjoy the subject material -- even if it is Hollywood swill. (Good timing
helps too, sometimes.)

I make this point, because that's where I fall in. I do not believe that a
Hollywood script is scripture by any means. However, I do occasionally enjoy
Hollywood blockbusters for other reasons. I can even enjoy a badly written
or poorly executed movie if the subject matter is something I really enjoy.
For instance, baseball movies. So many of them are HORRIBLE, but because I
love baseball so much, I love most (not all) baseball movies I see.

But I can still recognize bad movies as bad movies despite enjoying them. I
don't delude myself into thinking everything I like is a quality production.

That said, to some extent, every production is a "quality" production...
some high quality, some low quality (comparatively), but they were still
high-enough quality for production, and somebody somewhere LOVES it (or
would, if they saw it) because they can directly relate to it or they love
the subject matter.

It's all a matter of perspective. And personal taste.

Post by istlota
Think of where Cypher's head was at when he betrayed the rest of the
Nebuchadnezzar team. That is where your head is at when it comes to the
Ws. We have been told, by the Hollywood machine, that the Ws are these
geniuses. And, most of us lap up what the machine tells us and accept
it.

I was never "told" this. I watched their movies, read some of their scripts
and notes (what's available anyway), I enjoyed their material, and I came to
my own conclusions about them. I don't necessarily believe they are
geniuses, but I do think they are very talented storytellers, and they've
got a knack for making movies that *I* really enjoy.

Post by istlota
The Ws had no successful movie prior to the "Matrix".
"Assassins" lost money.

Assassins wasn't entirely their movie. They wrote the original script, and
it was bought by producer Joel Silver at the same time he bought their
original Matrix script. The studio wanted the violence cut down (i.e.,
remove the Wachowskis' particulars from the story), and after the rewrite,
the Wachowskis wanted their names removed from the film's credits, because
it was no longer their movie. The Writers Guild refused, and it's on their
reel. But after they did Bound, Silver apologized and offered them the
directing job on what has become their biggest masterpiece to date...

Post by istlota
"Bound" lost money and besides that no one I know has even heard
of it, let along seen it.

Bound was never intended to make money; "film noir" movies aren't intended
to be blockbusters or well known. It was a dark art film intended to prove
the Wachowskis' ability to write and direct their own film, and they
succeeded wildly.

Post by istlota
Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a let down, and that the
3rd "Matrix" was even worse.

Horrible assumption, or simply bad information.

I, for one, love both prequels. Then again, I love the film noir and
cyberpunk genres, and as a math professor, computer nerd, and lover of all
things mythological/spiritual, I love how the Wachowskis did the
UN-Hollywood thing and took their movie in the mathematical/systemic
direction, instead of simply focusing on the kung fu. (The movie could have
been better if the third film had more action inside the Matrix, but I can't
imagine them leaving out any parts of the story.)

Also, another drag on the second and third films: actor Marcus Chong (Tank)
was cut from the film over contract disputes, and actress Gloria Foster (The
Oracle) died before her parts for the third film had been filmed. Both
events required the Wachowski Brothers to compromise their script in order
to accommodate the changes, and the story sufferened slightly because of it.
Losing Tank wasn't nearly as devastating as losing the Oracle, though. I
don't want to take away from Mary Alice -- she did a great job -- but the
role belonged to Gloria Foster, and that's one of the biggest complaints
many people have about the third film.

Post by istlota
And now, this turkey of a movie "V" comes out and it is the
worst thing the Ws have ever been associated with.

Your opinion. I happen to love the movie. But, as I've previously explained,
it's a matter of perspective and personal taste.

Post by istlota
Isn't it obvious that something just doesn't smell right about all
this? The fact that no one is allowed to ask the Ws any questions
about their work, or anything else for that matter.

You mean... public figures actually taking their right to privacy seriously?
Gasp! Shock! Horror!

I say good for them. As a fan, I want more information, but I also applaud
them for doing what so many others do not -- being private citizens instead
of media whores.

Post by istlota
The fact that the crew members of their movies are not even allowed
to step within a certain number of feet from these two weirdos. Isn't
it obvious that the machine is pulling yet another fast one on the
children of Zion?

No. Why don't you read up on the "personal space" restrictions and other
bizarre requests/requirements imposed by Oprah Winfrey or other celebrities.
The Wachowskis simply ask to be left alone. They're not the weird ones at
all (at least, uhh, not in that respect).

Post by JPM III
You're digging so much into things irrelevant to the film that
it's tough to take much of your opinion seriously, because you are obviously
biased against the W Brothers.

You're right. I won't lose my cool, and I will continue to discuss this with
you as long as you can do the same. Unlike Smith -- or perhaps just like
Smith -- I enjoy the discussion. The purpose of any "argument" is not to
"win" so that the other person "loses"; this is not a zero-sum game. The
purpose, on the other hand, is for both of us to gain something. We both
learn something from the other, even if all we learn is what the other
person thinks, and we disregard it later.

Post by istlota
Drill into the impact of what you just said. You said I am digging too
deep into irrelevant things. Yet, this group exists, it's whole purpose
is to dig into anything and everything having to do with the Matrix.
That is what everyone hear does. It is what gets us off. So, the
question remains to be asked .. why does my particular angle of
Matrix-lore raise such a red flag to the true believers?

You make a very good point. That's why we're all here. And as far as I'm
concerned, you're welcome to keep it up!

Just... without the personal attacks or ridicule. (I'm not blaming or
accusing. I've just seen it elsewhere, and I've been the one doing it
occasionally, and it only hinders the conversation.)

Post by istlota
You discount my opinion because I an "obviously biased against the W
Brothers". And, yet, you are obviously biased _towards_ the W Brothers.
Why should your bias be more acceptable here then mine?

I didn't discount your opinion. I just let you know what I thought of your
choice of words. I got your message, and I was simply trying to understand
it, and letting you know how your demeanor affected how I initially filtered
your thoughts.

Everyone has a filter. Everyone hears things just the way they hear them,
and someone else hears the same thing differently. Not to beat a dead horse,
but... perspective! ;)

Robert

2006-05-04 22:27:54 UTC

Post by istlota
Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a let down, and that the
3rd "Matrix" was even worse.

Horrible assumption, or simply bad information.

Well, not _everyone_, but it's pretty clearly a majority
position, from what I've read/seen.

Post by JPM III
I love how the Wachowskis did the
UN-Hollywood thing and took their movie in the mathematical/systemic
direction, instead of simply focusing on the kung fu.

I think the first movie is proof you can wrap up a very interesting
and complex core story in an action/adventure setting and be both
commercially and critically successful. The second two movies
look/sound/feel like a couple of freshman philosophy majors debating
after a few two many glasses of wine.

Post by JPM III
I
don't want to take away from Mary Alice -- she did a great job -- but the
role belonged to Gloria Foster, and that's one of the biggest complaints
many people have about the third film.

I've _never_ read/heard of anybody complaining about that. It certainly
gets commented on, mostly about what a rotten shame it was, but
effecting the movie? And biggest complaint about it? No way, not in any
sense that it was what ruined the movie. The movie sucked because it
sucked, just like Reloaded sucked. Gloria Foster wasn't going to save
it. Heck, Agent Smith's one of my favorite villians ever, and Hugo at
his scenery-chewing best couldn't elevate that dog.

If you're wondering, I'll tell you what my main beef is with the story
- Neo knocking sentinels out of the sky in The Real using,
well....something. That boils the movie down to one of two inescapable
possibilities: a Matrix within a Matrix, or you've left fairly hard
sci-fi behind and devolved (to me) into a fantasy world of X-Men-like
powers. The Deus ex Machina solution is just cheap, but since the vast
majority of the hard-core fans seem heavily invested in the idea that
it's _not_ a Matrix-in-Matrix, then in that case, all I've got to say
is "ugh", what cheap dreck, and a betrayal of the first movie. After
that it all just slides downhill. Or maybe it's more like a trainwreck.

To address what I think was somebody's core argument - the gulf between
the quality of The Matrix and the other two movies is huge, vast,
enormous - big enough to lend credence to the idea that maybe the
Writer's Guild ought to take a close look at it. Not that will, of
course. More likely the lads are one-trick ponies, one-hit wonders.
It's happened before.
CF the Animatrix - lotta good stuff there...far less direct W
involvement. Hhhhmmm.

JPM III

2006-05-06 16:44:33 UTC

Post by istlota
Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a let down, and that the
3rd "Matrix" was even worse.

Horrible assumption, or simply bad information.

Well, not _everyone_, but it's pretty clearly a majority
position, from what I've read/seen.

The majority of people who mouth off about it -- many of whom complain
loudly and without hesitation -- are not the majority of all people. The
movie, much like the original, has a significant underground following...
mostly people who are intelligent enough not to make a verbal argument out
of it, because it isn't worth their time. (It isn't worth mine either,
except that I enjoy the discussion.)

Post by JPM III
I love how the Wachowskis did the
UN-Hollywood thing and took their movie in the mathematical/systemic
direction, instead of simply focusing on the kung fu.

I think the first movie were about philosophy, and the second (treating the
sequels as two parts of the same movie) was not about philosophy at all, but
about realizing everything about the world is causal -- i.e., no philosophy
matters, because everything is simply cause and effect, including our
understanding of it. The universe is a purely logical system, and our feeble
minds lack the power to comprehend what connects event A to event B... but
it's all there.

I think that was the point of the latter two movies... to prove that the
"problem" of choice was only a problem because of the limitations of any
system to fully realize everything about itself... because the higher (or
underlying) governing rules of nature can never truly be understood since
that would require some outside perspective that isn't possible.

I need to re-visit this later when I have more time to talk about it,
because I feel like I rushed through this... Just respond by criticizing my
point and I'll try to be more clear later. :)

Post by Robert
If you're wondering, I'll tell you what my main beef is with the story
- Neo knocking sentinels out of the sky in The Real using,
well....something. That boils the movie down to one of two inescapable
possibilities: a Matrix within a Matrix, or you've left fairly hard
sci-fi behind and devolved (to me) into a fantasy world of X-Men-like
powers.

I don't agree or disagree, but there is a third possibility. Call it
X-Men-like if you want, but it boils down to Neo's Matrix-hacking ability
and the electrical component of the human brain. The machines in the real
world operate on electricity using a signal eminating from the Source, which
Neo has "touched" -- so now he not only feels that signal, but he can
manipulate it. He doesn't physically stop the machines; he uses the signal
to manipulate them. (Of course, he doesn't even realize that, and the Oracle
doesn't explain it that way, so like I said... it's just a third
possibility. But it seems to make the most sense.(

Post by Robert
The Deus ex Machina solution is just cheap, but since the vast
majority of the hard-core fans seem heavily invested in the idea that
it's _not_ a Matrix-in-Matrix, then in that case, all I've got to say
is "ugh", what cheap dreck, and a betrayal of the first movie. After
that it all just slides downhill. Or maybe it's more like a trainwreck.
To address what I think was somebody's core argument - the gulf between
the quality of The Matrix and the other two movies is huge, vast,
enormous - big enough to lend credence to the idea that maybe the
Writer's Guild ought to take a close look at it. Not that will, of
course. More likely the lads are one-trick ponies, one-hit wonders.
It's happened before.
CF the Animatrix - lotta good stuff there...far less direct W
involvement. Hhhhmmm.

I prefer the ones that tie more directly into the Ws' story, or at least
don't conflict with it.

Robert

2006-05-06 20:48:57 UTC

Post by istlota
Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a let down, and that the
3rd "Matrix" was even worse.

Horrible assumption, or simply bad information.

Well, not _everyone_, but it's pretty clearly a majority
position, from what I've read/seen.

Sure the series has an underground/cult following; that doesn't
change the fact that there's a precipitous drop in box office earnings,
ratings, etc. Revolutions earned about half what Reloaded did (in the
US), which was less than what The Matrix earned. The Matrix is in
IMDB's Top 250 list; the others are not. Likewise number of votes and
number of reviews, etc.

Post by JPM III
I think the first movie were about philosophy, and the second (treating the
sequels as two parts of the same movie) was not about philosophy at all, but
about realizing everything about the world is causal -- i.e., no philosophy
matters, because everything is simply cause and effect, including our
understanding of it. The universe is a purely logical system, and our feeble
minds lack the power to comprehend what connects event A to event B... but
it's all there.

*shrug* insert whatever sort of pair of ostentatious, drunken,
annoying thinkers you want, the criticism stands.

Post by JPM III
I think that was the point of the latter two movies... to prove that the
"problem" of choice was only a problem because of the limitations of any
system to fully realize everything about itself... because the higher (or
underlying) governing rules of nature can never truly be understood since
that would require some outside perspective that isn't possible.

It doesn't matter - they were bad _movies_. The first movie was a
good movie with some very intriquing ideas underpinning it. The second
two were poorly done movies that got 'in your face' with a mish-mash of
all sorts of ideas that were jumbled on top of a poorly told story.

Post by JPM III
I need to re-visit this later when I have more time to talk about it,
because I feel like I rushed through this... Just respond by criticizing my
point and I'll try to be more clear later. :)

If your point is that there's some sort of valid deep-thought
stuff going on somewhere under that celluloid disaster....*shrug*
doesn't change a thing.

Post by JPM III
I don't agree or disagree, but there is a third possibility. Call it
X-Men-like if you want, but it boils down to Neo's Matrix-hacking ability
and the electrical component of the human brain. The machines in the real
world operate on electricity using a signal eminating from the Source, which
Neo has "touched" -- so now he not only feels that signal, but he can
manipulate it. He doesn't physically stop the machines; he uses the signal
to manipulate them. (Of course, he doesn't even realize that, and the Oracle
doesn't explain it that way, so like I said... it's just a third
possibility. But it seems to make the most sense.(

Oh yeah, the ol' WiFi idea. Raises a whole raft of cool
possibilities....but unfortunately creates logic/plot holes big enough
to drive a Vogon fleet through. I really think the only _logical_
possibility is Matrix-in-Matrix.

(in re Animatrix)

Post by JPM III
I prefer the ones that tie more directly into the Ws' story, or at least
don't conflict with it.

Hehehehe. Ah, they're canon, approved by the W's! Get out wit yer
conflicts! :)

mr_director

2006-05-07 18:46:17 UTC

If you say that the second and third Matrix films are poorly told
stories, then you may not know what elements make a good story.
However, there are plenty of well told stories out there that you
simply may not like. I'm sure you can think of a good movie with a poor
story. Jurassic Park: The Lost World comes to mind as a well told poor
story.

If all three Matrix movies were created within three years (like Lord
of the Rings), I think people would have received the second two much
better. The problem I find is that people became so involved in the
first film (and understood it so well after so many repeated viewings)
that they were shocked and confused when they saw the second film. And
when the third film didn't directly answer some of the questions that
the second film raised, people just discredited both sequels.

I look at the trilogy as one story. In doing so, I really enjoy all
three films. But I won't lie -- when I first saw Reloaded, I wasn't a
fan. But after I watched it a second time and took in more of the
story, I understood much more. The problem with most fans of the first
film is that they walk in feeling like Matrix veterans hoping to just
totally understand anything that Reloaded and Revolutions throws at
them. Not the case. They are mostly confused. And they think the
stories are poorly written and told because of it. The ironic thing
about that is that a look to the past would reveal that most people
didn't even understand The Matrix when they watched it the first time;
or, at least, they didn't understand everything.

I think that it's fun that there are unanswered questions. If there
weren't, then what would we be talking about? ;)

Robert

2006-05-07 19:54:36 UTC

Post by mr_director
They are mostly confused.

Ya know, the old "you just don't get it" insult doesn't cut it with me.
"Getting it" would be irrelevant if they were properly done
movies/stories. One doesn't need to "get" all the underlying political
satire and anti-war messages to enjoy Dr. Strangelove as a rollicking
funny comedy, eh?

That's one reason the first movie is a great movie - one doesn't need
to 'get' it to enjoy it. And the argument that someone _doesn't_ like 2
or 3 because they don't 'get' it just proves the point. If I need to
'get' one, some, or all of the underlying 'messages' to find the movie
enjoyable....whoever made it missed the mark.

Ever listen to those really dark old German operas? I don't understand
a word of 'em. Like some of 'em, though. Good music. Go figure.

.

JPM III

2006-05-07 22:02:05 UTC

Post by mr_director
They are mostly confused.

Uh, so exactly what would someone enjoy about the first movie if they didn't
get it? What does it have -- aside from anything to do with the story, since
a person doesn't have to get it -- that the latter two movies don't have?

Post by Robert
And the argument that someone _doesn't_ like 2 or 3 because they don't
'get' it just proves the point. If I need to 'get' one, some, or all of
the
underlying 'messages' to find the movie enjoyable....whoever made it
missed the mark.

It has nothing to do with all the underlying messages. It's just the overall
story. If you get it and don't like it, then say so, but that doesn't mean
it's a bad story or bad storytelling, because obviously it appeals to
millions of others who do enjoy it quite enthusiastically.

Maybe you're just confusing your opinions about the work with the quality of
the work, or else your words are causing us to have that confusion.

Post by Robert
Ever listen to those really dark old German operas? I don't understand
a word of 'em. Like some of 'em, though. Good music. Go figure.

You "get" them. Or, maybe more accurately, they get through to you. That's
how pretty much everything works to those who enjoy it.

Robert

2006-05-07 23:56:59 UTC

Post by JPM III
Uh, so exactly what would someone enjoy about the first movie if they didn't
get it? What does it have -- aside from anything to do with the story, since
a person doesn't have to get it -- that the latter two movies don't have?

Ah, sub-text that requires multiple viewing to make the rest of
the movie comprehensible (a fair paraphrase of your position, I think)
doesn't constitute a story. That's what _you guys_ are saying - that's
your argument. And that's my definition (and others, apparently) of
pooooor story-telling...'cause ya ain't got one, all you got is
philosophy dressed up in special effects.
But if I answered you're question directly, you'd "Aha!" me with
"but that's in all the movies!", so I shan't bother. It's easy enough
to see the difference.

Post by JPM III
It has nothing to do with all the underlying messages.

Well, that's the usual argument I see - basically, "If you were
smart like the rest of us and understood the big 'secret message',
you'd like the movies too! Nyah!"

Post by JPM III
It's just the overall
story. If you get it and don't like it, then say so, but that doesn't mean
it's a bad story or bad storytelling, because obviously it appeals to
millions of others who do enjoy it quite enthusiastically.

I think a whole ton of people got too emotionally invested in it
and would rationalize anything the W's put in front of them as a good
story. That aside, the viewing public (not always an indicator of
quality, to be sure) certainly voted with their dollars, at least in
the US. I really gave up on the story at the end of Reloaded. Made it
all pointless and cheap.

Post by JPM III
Maybe you're just confusing your opinions about the work with the quality of
the work, or else your words are causing us to have that confusion.

My opinion of the work is that is of low quality compared to the
original movie.

Post by Robert
Ever listen to those really dark old German operas? I don't understand
a word of 'em. Like some of 'em, though. Good music. Go figure.

You "get" them. Or, maybe more accurately, they get through to you. That's
how pretty much everything works to those who enjoy it.

Ah, you miss the point. If Reloaded and Revolutions were good
SciFi/action-adventure/thriller/mystery/whatever movies, they could
carry along all the sub-text in the world and they'd still be good
movies. But they're not. Maybe they're really good <insert whatever it
is you think they are HERE> movies...I have no idea, and really don't
care. Maybe The Matrix was only made so the W's could steal Warner's
money to make their art house movies that _should_ have only been
screened at Cannes.

However, we know that the W's are perfectly capable of making a
rollickin' good flick with all sorts of goodies to delve into (or not).
And then they abysmally failed to follow through. Go figure.

JPM III

2006-05-11 19:16:27 UTC

So by that standard, dozens of other brilliant movies in the "mind-fuck"
genre (Donnie Darko comes to mind) would fall victim to the "poor
storytelling" label. I think it's exactly opposite. I think it's brilliant
storytelling, so brilliant that its coherence cannot be realized by one
viewing alone. That's incredibly tough to write, much less pull off on
screen.

Post by JPM III
It has nothing to do with all the underlying messages.

Well, that's the usual argument I see - basically, "If you were
smart like the rest of us and understood the big 'secret message',
you'd like the movies too! Nyah!"

I was saying the opposite -- I was saying you don't have to get any
particular deeper meaning to "get" the movie. Everyone receives it
differently, and to "get it" means something different for everyone
(sometimes only slightly different, sometimes drastically different).

Well, I'm like that with a lot of directors/writers. Richard Linklater,
Quentin Tarantino, Andy & Larry Wachowski... but I don't like *everything*
any of them have done.

Post by JPM III
Maybe you're just confusing your opinions about the work with the quality of
the work, or else your words are causing us to have that confusion.

My opinion of the work is that is of low quality compared to the
original movie.

Which is fair as long as you treat it as opinion, since... I disagree. But
it's fair.

Post by Robert
Ever listen to those really dark old German operas? I don't understand
a word of 'em. Like some of 'em, though. Good music. Go figure.

You "get" them. Or, maybe more accurately, they get through to you. That's
how pretty much everything works to those who enjoy it.

Ah, you miss the point. If Reloaded and Revolutions were good
SciFi/action-adventure/thriller/mystery/whatever movies, they could
carry along all the sub-text in the world and they'd still be good
movies. But they're not. Maybe they're really good <insert whatever it
is you think they are HERE> movies...I have no idea, and really don't
care. Maybe The Matrix was only made so the W's could steal Warner's
money to make their art house movies that _should_ have only been
screened at Cannes.
However, we know that the W's are perfectly capable of making a
rollickin' good flick with all sorts of goodies to delve into (or not).
And then they abysmally failed to follow through. Go figure.

I don't think they failed. I just think they delved into more of the same
(so no innovation) plus some new stuff that people weren't so interested in.
So it came off as failure to many, but... wasn't.

JPM III

2006-05-07 21:42:46 UTC

Post by mr_director
If you say that the second and third Matrix films are poorly told
stories, then you may not know what elements make a good story.
However, there are plenty of well told stories out there that you
simply may not like. I'm sure you can think of a good movie with a poor
story. Jurassic Park: The Lost World comes to mind as a well told poor
story.
If all three Matrix movies were created within three years (like Lord
of the Rings), I think people would have received the second two much
better. The problem I find is that people became so involved in the
first film (and understood it so well after so many repeated viewings)
that they were shocked and confused when they saw the second film. And
when the third film didn't directly answer some of the questions that
the second film raised, people just discredited both sequels.

Actually, I think the problem was that Reloaded and Revolutions were split
into two movies. If they were presented as a double feature (or all at once
in some other way), then the story would have flowed much more effectively
to present the second half of Neo's journey more fluidly.

Also, removing or reducing some filler scenes (like the rave scene -- only
needed about 15 seconds of that, if any at all -- they could have just cut
to Trinity and Neo, or skipped that altogether) and even cutting back a
little on the final fight scene between Neo and Smith just to further flesh
out some of the Matrix's falling apart... things like that could have been
useful.

But as it stands, it's brilliant. Some people just choose to dislike it, and
that's fine.

Post by mr_director
I look at the trilogy as one story. In doing so, I really enjoy all
three films. But I won't lie -- when I first saw Reloaded, I wasn't a
fan. But after I watched it a second time and took in more of the
story, I understood much more. The problem with most fans of the first
film is that they walk in feeling like Matrix veterans hoping to just
totally understand anything that Reloaded and Revolutions throws at
them. Not the case. They are mostly confused. And they think the
stories are poorly written and told because of it. The ironic thing
about that is that a look to the past would reveal that most people
didn't even understand The Matrix when they watched it the first time;
or, at least, they didn't understand everything.

Exactly.

Post by mr_director
I think that it's fun that there are unanswered questions. If there
weren't, then what would we be talking about? ;)

Exactly, again.

Robert

2006-05-08 00:08:38 UTC

JPM III wrote:

I'm really glad you wrote the following paragraph. You jogged loose
some repressed memories....hehehe.

Post by JPM III
Also, removing or reducing some filler scenes (like the rave scene -- only
needed about 15 seconds of that, if any at all -- they could have just cut
to Trinity and Neo, or skipped that altogether) and even cutting back a
little on the final fight scene between Neo and Smith just to further flesh
out some of the Matrix's falling apart... things like that could have been
useful.

Dear gawd the Rave and Morpheus's messianic speech. Absolutely horrific
work.

And here's something you can explain to me - now, did I miss something,
or aren't Neo and Trin bunking together on the Neb? Hey, ya know, I was
kinda, "Aw, isn't that sweet." and of course everybody expected it, and
I _really_ don't think there was any sort of indication of there being
any sort of sexual taboos, right? So.....OK, I'm pretty sure these two
are doin' the Wild Thing on Morph's boat. (Yes, I know it's not a
boat.)

With me so far?

Alrighty then......when they reach Zion, and are in the elevator - why
the heck do they jump each other like they've been deprived for
MONTHS?? Is it spawning season for The One or something? It made ZERO
contextual sense. Now, it would have worked fine (and actually been
quite amusing) IF the story had been set up that, for some reason,
there was no co-ed stuff allowed on Zion's hovercraft. (Why? I dunno. I
didn't write the damn thing.) And THEN when the elevator opens to all
those people of faith in The One, ah, that makes their brief romantic
interlude all the more poignant...IF IT MADE ANY SENSE, which it
doesn't.

Just call that my Exhibit 1 for poor story-telling.

JPM III

2006-05-11 19:06:55 UTC

Post by Robert
I'm really glad you wrote the following paragraph. You jogged loose
some repressed memories....hehehe.

Actually, I got the impression that they weren't bunking together on the
ship. I would imagine that a good captain and crew wouldn't allow that
onboard the ship, if for no better reason than to keep them focused on
staying alive while out in sentinel-infested ... sewers.

On that note, though, I can imagine the rest of the crew pulling some fun
pranks on them, like turning the lights on while they're naked or
something... and I'm sure it could get much better than that.

The Matrix, unrated cut...

Post by Robert
With me so far?
Alrighty then......when they reach Zion, and are in the elevator - why
the heck do they jump each other like they've been deprived for
MONTHS?? Is it spawning season for The One or something? It made ZERO
contextual sense. Now, it would have worked fine (and actually been
quite amusing) IF the story had been set up that, for some reason,
there was no co-ed stuff allowed on Zion's hovercraft. (Why? I dunno. I
didn't write the damn thing.) And THEN when the elevator opens to all
those people of faith in The One, ah, that makes their brief romantic
interlude all the more poignant...IF IT MADE ANY SENSE, which it
doesn't.
Just call that my Exhibit 1 for poor story-telling.

I still say they weren't allowed to engage in those types of activities
while onboard the ship. But that's never really addressed, except in
super-intense situations, such as when Neo dies and comes back in the first
movie, and when Trinity dies and comes back in the second movie. So since
there's no evidence to really support either case, I'd say it's more of a
nonissue... I guess.

Robert

2006-05-11 22:14:14 UTC

Post by JPM III
Actually, I got the impression that they weren't bunking together on the
ship.

Just watched that scene again - he gets out of bed, goes and opens a
metallically squeaky door, and cut to Morph driving the Neb.

At any rate....even if you're right, it STILL doesn't work, because
there's simply no deprivation time from the initial point when we see
'em all snuggle-bunny until the elevator scene. The only "out" for
this is to argue that:

That initial scene is on the Neb
Sex not allowed on the Neb (or hovercraft in general).
But we're expected to believe that two (provably extremely horny) are
going to sleep together w/no hanky-panky goin' on.

Nope, no way this works. It's just poorly written.

JPM III

2006-06-05 21:39:50 UTC

Post by JPM III
Actually, I got the impression that they weren't bunking together on the
ship.

Just watched that scene again - he gets out of bed, goes and opens a
metallically squeaky door, and cut to Morph driving the Neb.
At any rate....even if you're right, it STILL doesn't work, because
there's simply no deprivation time from the initial point when we see
'em all snuggle-bunny until the elevator scene. The only "out" for
That initial scene is on the Neb
Sex not allowed on the Neb (or hovercraft in general).
But we're expected to believe that two (provably extremely horny) are
going to sleep together w/no hanky-panky goin' on.
Nope, no way this works. It's just poorly written.

Poorly written because you can't understand how it could work. But I can,
and I think people with a higher purpose than yours or mine can be
responsible enough to control themselves.

But an even simpler solution that still rebukes your point: they were simply
looking forward to being intimate away from the ship, away from their crew,
away from work -- perhaps even in a comfortable bed. I've been on a road
trip with a girl before, and I've also worked long work days or weeks, and
while it's fun making it work with what you've got, the anticipation of
what's to come in the privacy of your own home sends emotions and hormones
through the roof.

Robert

2006-06-07 13:41:47 UTC

Post by JPM III
Actually, I got the impression that they weren't bunking together on the
ship.

Just watched that scene again - he gets out of bed, goes and opens a
metallically squeaky door, and cut to Morph driving the Neb.
At any rate....even if you're right, it STILL doesn't work, because
there's simply no deprivation time from the initial point when we see
'em all snuggle-bunny until the elevator scene. The only "out" for
That initial scene is on the Neb
Sex not allowed on the Neb (or hovercraft in general).
But we're expected to believe that two (provably extremely horny) are
going to sleep together w/no hanky-panky goin' on.
Nope, no way this works. It's just poorly written.

Poorly written because you can't understand how it could work. But I can,

Ah, the stench of the elitist.

Post by JPM III
and I think people with a higher purpose than yours or mine can be
responsible enough to control themselves.

You can rationalize it all you want, it's poorly written.

JPM III

2006-06-07 22:52:26 UTC

Post by JPM III
Actually, I got the impression that they weren't bunking together on the
ship.

Just watched that scene again - he gets out of bed, goes and opens a
metallically squeaky door, and cut to Morph driving the Neb.
At any rate....even if you're right, it STILL doesn't work, because
there's simply no deprivation time from the initial point when we see
'em all snuggle-bunny until the elevator scene. The only "out" for
That initial scene is on the Neb
Sex not allowed on the Neb (or hovercraft in general).
But we're expected to believe that two (provably extremely horny) are
going to sleep together w/no hanky-panky goin' on.
Nope, no way this works. It's just poorly written.

Poorly written because you can't understand how it could work. But I can,

Ah, the stench of the elitist.

I've been saying that about your vitriolic words for days now.

Post by JPM III
and I think people with a higher purpose than yours or mine can be
responsible enough to control themselves.

You can rationalize it all you want, it's poorly written.

You can blame the writers all you want: it's an excellent work of cyberpunk
fiction, one of the best of its time.

JPM III

2006-05-07 21:37:53 UTC

Post by Robert
It doesn't matter - they were bad _movies_. The first movie was a
good movie with some very intriquing ideas underpinning it. The second
two were poorly done movies that got 'in your face' with a mish-mash of
all sorts of ideas that were jumbled on top of a poorly told story.

Poorly _understood_ story. The story is brilliant, whether people get it or
not.

If your point is that there's some sort of valid deep-thought
stuff going on somewhere under that celluloid disaster....*shrug*
doesn't change a thing.

It has nothing to do with deep thought to someone who thinks about the
topics presented in the movie fairly regularly. A philosopher doesn't
consider philosophy to be "deep", because to him/her the classic
philosophies of prior geniuses is back-of-the-hand regurgitation. The same
is true of everything presented in the Matrix movies, even the latter two --
just an amalgamation and regurgiation of old ideas, presented creatively to
tell the story from a particular perspective to make a few particular
points.

This is essentially what every movie is, but the difference with the Matrix
is that it is an incredibly complex plot that managers to remain coherent
and true to itself if people can simply grasp the ideas and put them
together... and it's all there, if people just pick up on the details, which
is nearly impossible the first time or even the first several times through.

Oh yeah, the ol' WiFi idea. Raises a whole raft of cool
possibilities....but unfortunately creates logic/plot holes big enough
to drive a Vogon fleet through.

Well since a Vogon fleet is microscopic, I agree with you.

Post by Robert
I really think the only _logical_ possibility is Matrix-in-Matrix.

Logical because you can't rationalize any other possibility?

Robert

2006-05-07 23:26:13 UTC

Poorly _understood_ story. The story is brilliant, whether people get it or
not.

Irrelevant to whether or not they were good movies.

Post by JPM III
This is essentially what every movie is, but the difference with the Matrix
is that it is an incredibly complex plot that managers to remain coherent
and true to itself if people can simply grasp the ideas and put them
together... and it's all there, if people just pick up on the details, which
is nearly impossible the first time or even the first several times through.

It lost any semblance of coherence the instant Neo starts
demonstrating psychic powers. Or whatever it was he did to knock down
Sentinels in the Real.

Post by JPM III
Well since a Vogon fleet is microscopic, I agree with you.

Ah, not an Adams fan. The Vogon Constructor fleet was full-size;
they're the ones that demolished the Earth. You're thinking of the
combined assault fleet (don't recall the two names at the moment) that
was swallowed by the dog, no? Wasn't the Vogons.

Post by Robert
I really think the only _logical_ possibility is Matrix-in-Matrix.

Logical because you can't rationalize any other possibility?

Rationalization in this context would be a Bad Thing. Let's say
instead I view Matrix-in-Matrix as the least of possible evils. Still
cheap, but not-as-bad-as the alternatives.

If you've got a hard SF explanation that's true to the first
movie, I'd love to hear it. No gaping plot holes, no deus ex machina,
no magic, no psychic powers, no fantasy.

JPM III

2006-05-11 19:03:19 UTC

Poorly _understood_ story. The story is brilliant, whether people get it or
not.

Irrelevant to whether or not they were good movies.

No it isn't. The story is just as relevant as money and entertainment value
when it comes to determining whether a movie qualifies as "good" or not.
It's all a matter of opinion, not only the decision to call a movie "good",
but on what you base that decision.

It lost any semblance of coherence the instant Neo starts
demonstrating psychic powers. Or whatever it was he did to knock down
Sentinels in the Real.

No it didn't. Then again, I understand it and I can make the logical
connections, so... of course it's coherent to me.

Post by JPM III
Well since a Vogon fleet is microscopic, I agree with you.

The fleet swallowed by the dog turned out to be the Vogons, and Ford and
Arthur teleported or whatever off the ship just in time, or something. Or so
I thought.

Maybe it was the second fleet. I'd have to re-read the books to know for
sure, and that's not such a bad idea.

Post by Robert
I really think the only _logical_ possibility is Matrix-in-Matrix.

Logical because you can't rationalize any other possibility?

Rationalization in this context would be a Bad Thing. Let's say
instead I view Matrix-in-Matrix as the least of possible evils. Still
cheap, but not-as-bad-as the alternatives.
If you've got a hard SF explanation that's true to the first
movie, I'd love to hear it. No gaping plot holes, no deus ex machina,
no magic, no psychic powers, no fantasy.

Once upon a time I wrote a Matrix FAQ for this newsgroup. It's in Google's
archives, I'm sure, and I need to revisit it and update it. Badly. I might
come up with something ... by Christmas, maybe. :)

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying your opinions are wrong, because as
opinions they can't be. But at least we both agree on liking the Matrix...
that's why we're here, isn't it?

istlota

2006-05-04 23:41:40 UTC

Post by JPM III
Just... without the personal attacks or ridicule. (I'm not blaming or
accusing. I've just seen it elsewhere, and I've been the one doing it
occasionally, and it only hinders the conversation.)

You are right, of course. But, I have difficulty reining in the passion
I have for my mission. Try and see our world through my eyes.

Imagine that you woke up in Plato's cave. Through no great effort on
your part, providence perhaps, you find yourself facing the entrance of
the cave, while all the other people in the cave are facing the back
wall. A menacing presence, let's call him W, is standing next to you at
the mouth of the cave. He is shining a light at the others, casting
shadows of their heads, arms, and hands onto the rear wall of the cave.

All your fellow cave-mates are busy assembling knives, clubs, and other
weapons to defend themselves against the enemies, the terrorists, they
see in front of them on the cave wall. But, as soon as they raise one
of their weapons to strike a blow, the terrorists raise one of their
weapons to counter-attack.

"No, wait", you at first calmly remark. "Your fears are based on
illusions. Your only enemy is your fear of you!"

But, they don't listen. So, you yell at them. Still, they don't listen.
Finally, out of desperation, you begin insulting the other people in
the cave. "Hey, you morons! Just turn the hell around. The Path out of
your dilemma is right behind you. Just take your eyes off the damn
illusions for one second. Just turn around, and walk into the light!"

But ... they just think you are nuts, insane, and definitely weird.
How, they wonder, can they doubt what they see with their own two eyes?

You could just forget about the boneheads in the cave and go on about
your life. You could just walk away and be free, safe and sound, beyond
the reach of their fears and illusions. But, if you did, the other
people in the cave would eventually die of hunger, starvation, or from
the "collateral damage" from their attacks against the "terrorists".

Or, you could keep trying to get their attention. But, if you take that
approach, your mouth could end up getting you into the same sort of jam
Plato's teacher's mouth got him into.

What would you do?

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-07 21:29:09 UTC

You are right, of course. But, I have difficulty reining in the passion
I have for my mission. Try and see our world through my eyes.
Imagine that you woke up in Plato's cave. Through no great effort on
your part, providence perhaps, you find yourself facing the entrance of
the cave, while all the other people in the cave are facing the back
wall. A menacing presence, let's call him W, is standing next to you at
the mouth of the cave. He is shining a light at the others, casting
shadows of their heads, arms, and hands onto the rear wall of the cave.
All your fellow cave-mates are busy assembling knives, clubs, and other
weapons to defend themselves against the enemies, the terrorists, they
see in front of them on the cave wall. But, as soon as they raise one
of their weapons to strike a blow, the terrorists raise one of their
weapons to counter-attack.
"No, wait", you at first calmly remark. "Your fears are based on
illusions. Your only enemy is your fear of you!"
But, they don't listen. So, you yell at them. Still, they don't listen.
Finally, out of desperation, you begin insulting the other people in
the cave. "Hey, you morons! Just turn the hell around. The Path out of
your dilemma is right behind you. Just take your eyes off the damn
illusions for one second. Just turn around, and walk into the light!"
But ... they just think you are nuts, insane, and definitely weird.
How, they wonder, can they doubt what they see with their own two eyes?
You could just forget about the boneheads in the cave and go on about
your life. You could just walk away and be free, safe and sound, beyond
the reach of their fears and illusions. But, if you did, the other
people in the cave would eventually die of hunger, starvation, or from
the "collateral damage" from their attacks against the "terrorists".
Or, you could keep trying to get their attention. But, if you take that
approach, your mouth could end up getting you into the same sort of jam
Plato's teacher's mouth got him into.
What would you do?

For starters, I find holes in their logic and exploit them carefully and
tactfully so as to show them the light with their eyes closed. Then they
will willingly seek the answers to what is truly unknown.

Easier said than done, but when you know someone is wrong, then it's only a
matter of appealing to their logic in order to prove to them that they are
wrong. Don't prove it to yourself -- prove it to them. It requires caution,
but it can be done.

Of course, if you can cause greater good by venturing out on your own and
leaving them behind, then that's your call.

Also... keep in mind that our most basic instinct is survival. Everything
else only stems from that, and everyone else understands that in some way.

Istlota

2006-05-08 19:15:26 UTC

Post by JPM III
For starters, I find holes in their logic and exploit them carefully and
tactfully so as to show them the light with their eyes closed. Then they
will willingly seek the answers to what is truly unknown.

That approach only works with reasonable people. Certainly, all sane humans
are capable of discerning wisdom. But, then there is that ego factor. That
attitude that seeks to win, to be right, and to hell with truth, logic, or
reason..

Consider a character like V. He is, to the core, a homicidal maniac. He
decides who the Evil Doers are. And then he kills them. In that respect, he
is exactly like all the other Hitlers, Osama bin Ladens, and Timothy
McVeighs of the world. Just think of the arrogance of it all .. to assume to
be God ... to decide who lives and who dies. Pure Ego.

"Me, me, me. Me, too."

The Ws paint a world where poor V is so innocent, so pure, and only results
to violence for self-defense. That is an old ruse. I think of such ruses
whenever I hear phrases like "peacekeeper missile" or "Hamas freedom
fighter".

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-10 21:43:23 UTC

People often see the reasoning and contemplate it for themselves long before
they admit that someone else's rationality resonates. I can't hold myself to
impossible standards; it is not my responsibility to make them understand,
but only to share my perspective and let them decide what it means to them.
As long as I do what I can in that regard, I feel satisfied that I have
served my purpose.

Post by Istlota
Consider a character like V. He is, to the core, a homicidal maniac. He
decides who the Evil Doers are. And then he kills them. In that respect, he
is exactly like all the other Hitlers, Osama bin Ladens, and Timothy
McVeighs of the world. Just think of the arrogance of it all .. to assume to
be God ... to decide who lives and who dies. Pure Ego.

That interpretation depends entirely on which side of the argument an
individual finds him/herself. The ethics you argue aren't necessarily
flawed, but we don't know the conditions that became the causes of V's
vendetta. If the ethics of V's argument appeal to someone, they could quite
easily make an opposing argument just as rationally sound, and their
opponents would just as quickly dismiss it as maniacal or egocentric because
they don't (or refuse to) understand it.

Post by Istlota
"Me, me, me. Me, too."
The Ws paint a world where poor V is so innocent, so pure, and only results
to violence for self-defense. That is an old ruse. I think of such ruses
whenever I hear phrases like "peacekeeper missile" or "Hamas freedom
fighter".

No they don't. Evey's words are proof enough of it. In V for Vendetta, just
as in the Matrix films, every one of their violent ideals is questioned in
terms of its moral or ethical correctness, and every time the answer seems
to be that maybe the opposition is right, but they've reached a point of no
return (or perhaps at any given juncture, it's all they know).

It's like telling a little lie, and then telling another lie or two or three
to cover it up. Sometimes you get caught, but sometimes the lies are
inconsequential and the coverup is successful and never revisited. In every
case, it is ethically improper, but sometimes going through with it is the
path of least resistance once you're halfway down the path.

Istlota

2006-05-11 15:59:09 UTC

Post by JPM III
No they don't. Evey's words are proof enough of it. In V for Vendetta, just
as in the Matrix films, every one of their violent ideals is questioned in
terms of its moral or ethical correctness, and every time the answer seems
to be that maybe the opposition is right, but they've reached a point of no
return (or perhaps at any given juncture, it's all they know).

I understand the point you are hovering over. But, you should know that the
Ws use writers' tricks throughout the movie to manipulate your emotions.

Here is a good example of one of the Ws tricks they use to manpulate the
audience's emotions. There is this scene at the end of the movie where the
Ws finally turn V loose and let him slice and dice everyone else in the
scene. But, first, before they turn V loose, they let the bad guys get in a
few licks first. This is a trick that script writers _always_ deploy before
the good guy kills a bad guy. They recognize that people have this thing
inside them, I prefer to call it the Divine Spark, that abhors death and
violence. Hence, writers _always_ first have the bad guys do something
really horrific. After that, the good guy can perform any act, no matter how
bloody and callous, and the audience will rip off a hearty "Yeah! Kick his
ass for me, too!"

This M.O. goes all the way back to the silent movie days where the poor
defenseless, but always young and beautiful, heroine had to first be tied to
the railroad tracks by the villain _before_ the good guy got to punch out
the villain. Another historical example would be where the rich but greedy
landlord had to first seek to evict the poor but angelic mother before the
good guy got to kick his butt.

A lot of thought goes into how to "program" the viewing audience into
feeling whatever emotion the writers wish them to feel. Remember this
whenever you catch yourself applauding for a good guy or hissing at a
villain. Also, think of this whenever you hear Prez W. making one of his
"evil-doer" speeches. Also, think of this whenever the nightly news protrays
blacks and moslems.

A good reference for studying how words and images are used to program
viewers is "Positioning", written by Jack Trout and Al Ries. This book is a
perfect example of why the ancient sages refused to share temple wisdom with
the common man.

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-11 19:31:09 UTC

Post by JPM III
No they don't. Evey's words are proof enough of it. In V for Vendetta,

just

Post by JPM III
as in the Matrix films, every one of their violent ideals is questioned in
terms of its moral or ethical correctness, and every time the answer seems
to be that maybe the opposition is right, but they've reached a point of

Post by JPM III
return (or perhaps at any given juncture, it's all they know).

The politicians and their minions were already well established as the
film's antagonists, so if you were following the film along those lines,
then you were already rooting for V to kill whomever it was necessary (in
his view) to kill. They don't necessarily want you to agree with his reasons
or motives; but as he is the protagonist and lead character, you're intended
to be rooting for him.

Post by Istlota
This M.O. goes all the way back to the silent movie days where the poor
defenseless, but always young and beautiful, heroine had to first be tied to
the railroad tracks by the villain _before_ the good guy got to punch out
the villain. Another historical example would be where the rich but greedy
landlord had to first seek to evict the poor but angelic mother before the
good guy got to kick his butt.
A lot of thought goes into how to "program" the viewing audience into
feeling whatever emotion the writers wish them to feel. Remember this
whenever you catch yourself applauding for a good guy or hissing at a
villain. Also, think of this whenever you hear Prez W. making one of his
"evil-doer" speeches. Also, think of this whenever the nightly news protrays
blacks and moslems.
A good reference for studying how words and images are used to program
viewers is "Positioning", written by Jack Trout and Al Ries. This book is a
perfect example of why the ancient sages refused to share temple wisdom with
the common man.

Emotive storytelling is just good storytelling. You seem to think it
cheapens the movie, and maybe it does for some people. But I think it's just
smart.

Istlota

2006-05-11 23:47:19 UTC

Post by JPM III
Emotive storytelling is just good storytelling. You seem to think it
cheapens the movie, and maybe it does for some people. But I think it's just
smart.

Well, okay. But, then, by that same logic, Hitler was smart to paint the
image of Jews that he did in chapter XI of "Mein Kamp". Ole Adolph's writing
was both passionate and emotional, designed to fire up the emotions of a
particular target audience. And, that it did and even still does today for
some copper tops.

Truth be told, the screen play of "V for Vendetta" has more in common with
"Mein Kamp" than "Matrix". And, that, my friend, should worry you. It should
even worry the Ws, who I have heard are of Jewish descent. But, then and
again, so was Josephus and that didn't stop him from aiding and abetting the
enemies of the Jewish people.

Istlota

JPM III

2006-06-05 21:46:12 UTC

Post by JPM III
Emotive storytelling is just good storytelling. You seem to think it
cheapens the movie, and maybe it does for some people. But I think it's

just

Post by JPM III
smart.

Hitler was an incredibly intelligent man. If you want proof, read a list of
his accomplishments. As gruesome as many of them were, he was actually able
to convince people to do all that dirty work for him. No idiot could have
done that. Hitler is no doubt one of the worst examples of human life ever
to walk the earth, but he was intellectually brilliant... and grossly
deranged.

Post by Istlota
Truth be told, the screen play of "V for Vendetta" has more in common with
"Mein Kamp" than "Matrix". And, that, my friend, should worry you. It should
even worry the Ws, who I have heard are of Jewish descent. But, then and
again, so was Josephus and that didn't stop him from aiding and abetting the
enemies of the Jewish people.

V for Vendetta is about destroying an oppressive government, not an entire
race. If you want to make that comparison, then use it against the Matrix,
which *is* about destroying an entire race (of machines), or using them
(humans) as cattle, depending on which side of it you wish to compare.

V for Vendetta is a comic book adaptation of a world similar to those we've
read about in books like 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and We ...
or the movie Equilibrium, which deserves to be mentioned here. Oppressive
governments, suppressed emotions, state-serving automatons afraid to be
themselves.

Istlota

2006-06-06 01:53:06 UTC

Post by JPM III
Hitler was an incredibly intelligent man. If you want proof, read a list of
his accomplishments. As gruesome as many of them were, he was actually able
to convince people to do all that dirty work for him. No idiot could have
done that. Hitler is no doubt one of the worst examples of human life ever
to walk the earth, but he was intellectually brilliant... and grossly
deranged.

You are making the same point Minister Farrakhan made several years ago,
when he claimed that Hitler was "wickedly great". I disagree.

I am not a student of Hitler's life, but I am somewhat familiar with his
life accomplishments. I did a bit of research not too long ago in an effort
to try and figure out why a human being would choose the path he did. He
didn't strike me as intellectually brilliant. He did have a talent for
speech. But, he chose to use that talent for evil, rather than for good.

You made a point in a previous post that emotive storytelling is smart, but
I would say that is not necessarily true. Talent is a gift from the creator.
A great artist has moments when he does not know where or how what he does
comes into being. Jimi Hendrix with his eyes closed and his voice so in tune
with each note he plays. That brief fraction of a second at the top of his
leap when it really did seem like Michael Jordan was floating beyond the
reach of gravity. These are examples of the Source of all things working
through mortals, the highest expression of art.

When an artist chooses to use his talent to drag people down, rather than
uplift them, that sort of art is neither smart or good. It is sub-par work
from an artist who is capable of much better. Which gets us back to the Ws
and their V story. It does not uplift humanity. It attempts to drag us down
to the level of dumb beasts. That is not good art. It is, rather, reactive
and sensual rather than inspired ... what you would expect from
Neanderthals, not Homo Sapiens.

Istlota

JPM III

2006-06-07 23:05:36 UTC

Post by JPM III
Hitler was an incredibly intelligent man. If you want proof, read a list

Post by JPM III
his accomplishments. As gruesome as many of them were, he was actually

able

Post by JPM III
to convince people to do all that dirty work for him. No idiot could have
done that. Hitler is no doubt one of the worst examples of human life ever
to walk the earth, but he was intellectually brilliant... and grossly
deranged.

His intelligence was not with academia; it was with people. From a very
young age, Hitler was an amateur student of psychology and sociology, a
natural step into the rest of the social sciences. And, naturally,
understand people and how to appeal to them made him a brilliant orator, and
a brilliant leader. That said, his "brilliance" was of a very evil kind --
and that point does not need to be overlooked. Hitler was one of the worst
people ever to live.

Post by Istlota
You made a point in a previous post that emotive storytelling is smart, but
I would say that is not necessarily true. Talent is a gift from the creator.

You base your argument on a logically unproven foundation. The idea of "the
creator" is only that, an idea, at least until proven without doubt. (I
concede, of course, that perhaps my logic is simply incapable of accepting
the "proof" that others observe; maybe they're just smarter for accepting a
truth that I can only perceive to be a plausibilty.)

Post by Istlota
A great artist has moments when he does not know where or how what he does
comes into being. Jimi Hendrix with his eyes closed and his voice so in tune
with each note he plays. That brief fraction of a second at the top of his
leap when it really did seem like Michael Jordan was floating beyond the
reach of gravity. These are examples of the Source of all things working
through mortals, the highest expression of art.
When an artist chooses to use his talent to drag people down, rather than
uplift them, that sort of art is neither smart or good.

That statement is rich with OPINION.

An opinion that I agree with, but opinion nonetheless.

Moral judgments do not stand up against objective logic, no matter how
widely accepted they may be. Every human on earth could share the same
opinion, but then if there were really a God in Heaven who disagreed, then
we ALL would be wrong according to the supreme judgment. (I'm leaning into
Christian dogma here; forgive me if it's irrelevant.)

The definition of all human words are contrivances of man. So to label an
action as smart or intelligent or good is to express an opinion, or perhaps
a value judgment. Such a judgment is not fact in and of itself; only the
statement of the opinion's existence is fact.

These two points simplify to this: opinions are neither proof nor fact, and
should not be expressed as such.

That said, I have in the past been lambasted by someone who gave me hell for
leaving out the words "I think" from various opinions. But, in statements
such as yours, where it is obvious that it is an opinion, such a
clarification is unnecessary. Except that, without it, you bring about a
much longer argument that could have been avoided by simply clarifying that
your statement was, indeed, a personal opinion.

(Lesson learned, Jonas. And I was never a troll. :)

Post by Istlota
It is sub-par work
from an artist who is capable of much better. Which gets us back to the Ws
and their V story. It does not uplift humanity. It attempts to drag us down
to the level of dumb beasts. That is not good art. It is, rather, reactive
and sensual rather than inspired ... what you would expect from
Neanderthals, not Homo Sapiens.

I agree with your opinion for the most part, but the morality of an action
does not undermine a person's intelligence. A person can use their gifts to
inflict pain and still be intelligent, even if deranged according to popular
opinion.

John Coxon

2006-04-22 13:09:58 UTC

Post by i***@earthlink.net
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Watching it was the final
proof to me that the W.'s did, indeed, steal Sophia Stewart's story for
the "Matrix".

So the film adaptation of a book which was written twenty years ago by a
British bloke called Alan Moore and a excellent artist called David
Lloyd has bearing on the plot for the Matrix?

Right...

--
John Coxon
ZZ9 Secretary - http://www.zz9.org/

A day without sunshine is like ... night.

LiveJournal: http://johncoxon.livejournal.com/
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN

istlota

2006-04-22 19:18:02 UTC

That is a sophomoric debate trick. Misrepresent your opponent's point
and then argue against that. Politicians do it all the time. It is a
common modus operandi of those guided by the machine.

Truth can not be argued against successfully. But, it can be
misrepresented. And, if that fails, ignore it [the Truth] and hope no
one else notices that the Emperor has no clothes.

JPM III began this thread as a vehicle for discussing what we think of
"V". I happen to think "V" is a mediocre _screenplay adaptation_. The
Ws used this movie to preach to the movie-going public about Larry W's
weird philosphies on homosexuality, violence, and anarchy. Which, even
then, could actually have been done in an entertaining way ... if the
Ws possessed half a much writing talent as they do ego.

The relevance of comparing "V" the movie with "Matrix" is that doing so
should lead you to question whether someone who wrote a script with the
depth of "Matrix" could possibly have also writen a script as mediocre
as "V",

Istlota

mr_director

2006-04-23 16:42:37 UTC

Istolta, it's very interesting to see someone who writes so smart have
such juvenile concepts. It seems like you're a very educated person on
some topic, but it's obviously not film.

Also, you spend so much of your argument pointing out the fact that
you're arguing that it really makes you appear less intelligent than
you are. Instead of that, I'd suggest defending your argument with more
crafty means. That's like an actor turning to the camera in a movie and
saying, "Hey, this is a movie, just letting you know."

Okay, so the numbers are things that you've said. The numbers with
letters are my replies. And...go!

1) What you need to consider is why, at this point in their career,
when the studios would fund any project the W.s chose to make a movie
of...?

1A) Because the studio wants to make money. That's the only reason
studios ever do anything.

2) Make no mistake about it. V. is not a good guy. He is a terrorist,
bent upon destroying society.

2A) So, what you're saying is that you like in the society in V for
Vendetta, i.e., you would consider living a happy life in that world?
If so, then you would definitely see V as a terrorist. That's because
terrorism is a subjective term which depends entirely on what point of
view you're coming from. If we lived in the world that V did, I'd want
terrorists like him to bring it down -- as did everyone else who
rallied at the end of the film.

Just as a side note: I thought you sounded intelligent when I started
reading your writing. But the more you talk the less you seem to know.

3) "Bound" lost money and besides that no one I know has even heard of
it, let along seen it.

3A) That's because Joel Silver and the Wachowski's set up a deal to
make Bound. If they could make Bound then it would prove to Warner
Bros. that they could handle a script like The Matrix. Oh, and by the
way, Bound is better reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes than any of the Matrix
films.

4) Truth can not be argued against successfully. But, it can be
misrepresented. And, if that fails, ignore it [the Truth] and hope no
one else notices that the Emperor has no clothes.

4A) And bla bla bla, Psychology 101, bla bla bla. How about that for a
debate trick? Making fun of the other person's hairstyle? I like it.

Okay, so all joking aside, your argument is based almost entirely on
opinion and lacks entirely of research other than what you've learned
in art class. Make some macaroni projects and call me when you're ready
to talk concisely, confidently, and intelligently.

istlota

2006-04-23 21:03:57 UTC

mr_director,

1A) Because the studio wants to make money. That's the only reason studios ever do anything.

But. my previous question was why _the Ws_ would choose the material of
"V", not what _the studio's_ motivation was. But, since you have opened
this new can of worms, let's deal with it.

You may have noticed how I keep drawing parallels between the inferior
(simulacra) message of "V" and the superior message of the story of the
Matrix. The story of the Matrix is more than just a movie. It is a
prophecy. And, it has parallels above and below, externally and
internally, in this physical world and within the spirit, the Self.

You are incorrect that the studio is only motivated by money. The
studio is part of the machine, part of the indoctrination arm of the
Matrix. The Matrix is motivated, first and foremost, by pure Ego. Money
is involved also, but profit is not #1 on the priority list. Think of
all the Smiths that showed up in Matrix Reloaded. Each just as
egotistical as the next. One appears and another steps up to straighten
its tie, to satisfy its collective Ego. The machine's Ego compels it to
protect its own, even at the risk of losing millions of dollars.

In the case of "V", surely someone high up on the food chain at the
studio must have held their noses while reading the Ws' screen play.
Perhaps, they may even have threw up their last meal while viewing the
story board presentation of V's hideously bloody final fight. But, the
Ws are part of the machine now, and the machine loves it Ego. It must
protect its own, even at the risk of losing millions. So, the movie got
made, even though one of the 14 year olds in my Creative Writing class
could have come up with better dialog.

Let's move on to another point you made:

"If we lived in the world that V did, I'd want terrorists like him to
bring it down -- as did everyone else who rallied at the end of the
film."

Notice how effective the machine's programming has been on your mind.
When you think of terrorists blowing up the Pentagon, you think, "My
God, how awful!" But, the machine then turns it around, flips the
script, paints you an imaginary picture where an ally of the US,
Britain, is now the bad guy and the terrorists are the good guys .. and
you buy into it! Yeah, you yell at the end of the movie. Hooray for the
terrorists!

Come on, man. You're smarter than that.

There are always better ways for mature adults to work out their
problems than to blow the hell out of something. What I am saying is
not the message the machine gives you. But, it is the Truth. The Truth
of the One.

In Neo's first scene, you see him opening a book entittled "Simulacra
and Simulation". That book was written 25 years ago by Jean
Beaudrillard. It examines illusions, inferior simulations of reality.
The physical is simulacra. the spiritual is Truth. The machine
tittilates the physical senses to get your attention, to convince you
that Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right. As Larry W. once said in an
interview, "we love sex and violence". That is the message of the
machine. But, there is a better way. The Way of the One.

Istlota

mr_director

2006-04-24 11:51:05 UTC

Wow. Maybe you're just insane.

istlota

2006-04-24 14:21:35 UTC

[WARNING ::: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS ABOUT THE MOVIE "V FOR
VENDETTA"]

If I am insane, then, of course, just write off these inane ramblings
as those of a diseased mind.

But, some of you reading this just can't shake that itch, that feeling
in the middle of your brain that keep whispering in your inner ear...
what if this Istlota is right?

"You ever have that feeling when you're not sure if you're awake or
dreaming?"

"Welcome to the real world"

That is the rub, isn't it? The very definition of insanity is also an
accurate description of a world controlled by the Matrix .. not being
able to discern reality from fantasy.

Was Neo really the One? Or, was he just a disturbed young man having a
crazy dream [remember, he is asleep when we first see him]?

Morpheus's game plan at the end of Matrix Revolution explicitly tells
us how to beat the machine. Remember what he told the Council? He said
the One fights for us.

But, now V has come along and he has different advice. V says blow the
hell up out of everything. But, wait. Think for a minute. Doesn't V
sound like Commander Lock, you know, the man Niobe left Morpheus for?
Morpheus placed his faith in the One, and in the love he knew the One
had for us. The One would fight for us and he would not fail us.

But, V/Commander Lock, places his faith in the weapons of this physical
world. Are you sure you want to go down that particular rabbit hole?

Neo, the One, found the Wisdom to defeat the machine from a woman, the
Oracle. The Greek name for wisdom is Sophia, the name of the real
author of the Matrix. Sophia wrote herself into the story of the
Matrix, as the Oracle, to show the One, and us, the Way. The Way to
beat the machine.

Neo, the One, found the strength to beat the machine from a woman, from
his love for the woman in his life, Trinity. But, V thinks _he_ is the
woman. He slaps on his cute little black wig, and spends the whole
movie sashaying around the big screen, avoiding the advances of the
woman in his life, played by Natalie Portman. As a matter of fact, the
Ws even go one step further and shave Natalie's head. They effectively
change man [V] into woman and woman [Natalie Portman] into man.

V is not about love. V is about Ego, man loving his own image, the
machine loving its own image. There is no room for a real woman in that
sort of world vision.

But, yeah, I know, I am just an insane man. Best to ignore anything
this One says, right?

Istlota

mr_director

2006-04-25 16:01:25 UTC

Well, if V had the power to manipulate the the physical reality around
him, I'm sure he would have.

Remember when Niobe blew the power plant. That's terrorist activity.
And Morpheus was referred to as a terrorist by Smith, which probably
means that they had done terrorist activity before The Matrix's story
even began. But what looks like terrorist activity to one person is
freedom to another.

istlota

2006-04-25 20:43:22 UTC

mr_director,

I think I understand your point. In the Real World, even most of the
Good People believe physical violence is necessary to protect against
the Evil Doers. After all, the argument goes, even Dr. King was
considered a terrorist by the FBI. Certainly, Gandhi was considered a
terrorist by the British. And, likewise, Mandela was considered a
terrorist by the government of South America. That makes two Nobel
Peace Prize winners who were both considered terrorists by the forces
they were fighting against. So, the argument goes, sometimes we have to
adopt the ways of the terrorists to fight the terrorists.

That is the argument which V makes. And, it is also the message coming
out of the White House and from the Nightly News. And, yet, despite
this argument that flows throughout the entire V movie, you should be
aware that the Matrix movies present the exact opposite argument, which
is that we can only win when we allow the One to fight for us.

Let's closely examine Niobe's heroic feat which you brought up in your
last post. Yes, she, with Morpheus strapped into the chair beside her,
flew a ship [aptly named The Hammer] into Zion's dock and zapped all
the sentinels with an EMP [Electro-Magnetic Pulse]. Captain Mifune gave
his life to prepare the way for her ship. And, yet, when our heros
climbed out of the Hammer and stepped before Commander Lock, he let all
the air out of their bubble. Not only had the EMP zapped the sentinels,
it had also zapped all of Zion's defense machines, including the APUs
[Armored Personnel Units].

Here is the message from that scene of the Matrix. Even if we use
physical weapons to fight the machine, even if it seems we win a
temporary battle, our own weapons will be turned against us. We can not
beat the machine with the weapons of this physical realm, be they guns,
bombs, swords, cute black wigs, or whatever.

Zion could not beat the Machine until they were finally stripped of all
their weapons of this physical realm, and were left totally dependent
on the One to save them.

We think the Matrix trilogy was just a movie, just fantasy, and that it
was. But, it was also much more. Open your bible, flip to Revelations
20:9-10, and you will find the final battle of Matrix Revolutions
described. It is only when Zion is compassed about by the evil one and
his forces, when Zion appears helpless before all the amassed forces of
this physical realm, that fire comes down out of heaven from the One
and devours our enemies. We don't defeat them by adopting the ways of
the terrorists, the ways of V, the ways of W. We defeat them by
"choosing" [the Source's greatest gift to us, Free Will] to allow the
One to fight for us. It is how MLK overcame Bull Connor. It is Gandhi
overcame the British. It is how Mandela overcame Apartheid. And, it is
how we the Children of Zion will overcome the machine ... because we
choose to let the One fight for us:

"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?"

"Because I choose to".

And, so, we persist until finally even the machine must bow and confess
the glory of the One, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End :

"Wait. I've seen this. This is it. This is the end."

"And I, I stand here, and I'm supposed to say something."

"I say:"

"EVERYTHING THAT HAS A BEGINNING HAS AN END, NEO."

Istlota

.

mr_director

2006-04-26 07:36:58 UTC

"So, the argument goes, sometimes we have to adopt the ways of the
terrorists to fight the terrorists."

No, the argument doesn't go that way. That's not what I said at all. I
said that there are no such things as "terrorists." Terrorism is
subjective. That's what I'm saying.

"...you should be aware that the Matrix movies present the exact
opposite argument, which is that we can only win when we allow the One
to fight for us."

Let us not forget that Neo did FIGHT Smith. Fight is the keyword. V
fought, too. Yay, comparisons.

"Let's closely examine Niobe's heroic feat which you brought up in your
last post. Yes, she, with Morpheus strapped into the chair beside her,
flew a ship [aptly named The Hammer] into Zion's dock and zapped all
the sentinels with an EMP [Electro-Magnetic Pulse]."

You can closely examine that scene all you want, but that is NOT the
scene that I brought up in my previous post. I said that Niobe blew up
the power plant. If I'm not mistaken, Zion isn't a power plant. It
might have a power plant in it, but (and correct me if I'm mistaken),
Zion is a city. Having said that, I was referring to the scene were, no
surprise here, Niobe blew up the power plant. That's terrorist
activity.

Moving on.

"Here is the message from that scene of the Matrix. Even if we use
physical weapons to fight the machine, even if it seems we win a
temporary battle, our own weapons will be turned against us."

That is not the message of that scene at all. If Morpehus wouldn't have
come through during that time then Zion would have been destoryed. The
message of that scene, and other scenes, and a thread throughout the
entire MATRIX film is the THE ONE isn't the one -- THE ONE is the MANY.
Without any of those key players -- Niobe, Morpheus, Trinity, Neo would
never have been able to get anywhere. I believe the Oracle even said
something like that at one point or another.

"It is only when Zion is compassed about by the evil one and his
forces, when Zion appears helpless before all the amassed forces of
this physical realm, that fire comes down out of heaven from the One
and devours our enemies."

"Compassed," a word that I've never heard of used in the context you
have provided means "to understand." So, your sentence reads, "It is
only when Zion is understand about by the evil one and his forces..."
Nope. That doesn't make sense.

"We don't defeat them by adopting the ways of the terrorists, the ways
of V, the ways of W. We defeat them by "choosing" [the Source's
greatest gift to us, Free Will] to allow the One to fight for us."

As previously mentioned, Morpheus, Trinity, and a whole bunch of other
colorful characters commit "terrorist" activity throughout the film --
from the Government Lobby to the Power Plant Explosion, there are
countless scenes that could be described as "terrorism." Without those
scenes, Neo would have never made it to the battle with Smith in
Revolutions, for that was the path of Neo. And, Neo could have never
done anything by himself.

"...because we choose to let the One fight for us: Because I choose
to".

That quote has nothing to do with letting someone else choose to fight
for us. Nothing whatsoever.

Please stop quoting random things that don't apply. Please stop
bringing up things that don't apply.

Robert

2006-04-26 23:40:49 UTC

*butts in for a moment*

Post by mr_director
"Compassed," a word that I've never heard of used in the context you
have provided means "to understand." So, your sentence reads, "It is
only when Zion is understand about by the evil one and his forces..."
Nope. That doesn't make sense.

Makes perfect sense in his context - it means to encircle, surround.
More often rendered "compassed all about", I think, but still plain.

*butts out*

Carry on!

John Coxon

2006-04-27 19:27:24 UTC

Post by Robert
*butts in for a moment*

Makes perfect sense in his context - it means to encircle, surround.
More often rendered "compassed all about", I think, but still plain.

No. Encompassed, is the word people are looking for, IMHO.

--
John Coxon
ZZ9 Secretary - http://www.zz9.org/

Beam me up Scotty. This isn't the men's room.

LiveJournal: http://johncoxon.livejournal.com/
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN

istlota

2006-04-27 20:11:14 UTC

I chose to use the same verb, "compassed", which appears in the King
James Version of the scripture I referred to in my post. It was used,
back in the days of that particular English King, as we now use
"encompass":

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/compassed

Istlota

John Coxon

2006-04-27 20:24:46 UTC

Post by istlota
I chose to use the same verb, "compassed", which appears in the King
James Version of the scripture I referred to in my post. It was used,
back in the days of that particular English King, as we now use

Your main mistake, here, was assuming that we all (a) realised you were
quoting a scripture and (b) assuming that we all knew it was taken from
the King James edition.

--
John Coxon
ZZ9 Secretary - http://www.zz9.org/

Cat (n.): Lapwarmer with built-in buzzer.

LiveJournal: http://johncoxon.livejournal.com/
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN

Robert

2006-04-27 22:14:23 UTC

Post by John Coxon
Your main mistake, here, was assuming that we all (a) realised you were
quoting a scripture and (b) assuming that we all knew it was taken from
the King James edition.

For pete's sake, it's in dictionary.com, even. You guys should sue
whoever provided you with english lit instruction.

tr.v. com·passed, com·pass·ing, com·pass·es
To make a circuit of; circle: The sailboat compassed the island.
To surround; encircle. See Synonyms at surround.
To understand; comprehend.
To succeed in carrying out; accomplish. See Synonyms at reach.
To scheme; plot.

Synonyms: surround, circle, compass, encircle, encompass, environ,
gird, 1girdle, ring
1 These verbs mean to lie around and bound on all sides: Suburbs
surround the city. A crown circled the king's head. Fog compassed the
mountain peak. A belt encircled her waist. A lake encompassed the
island. The desert environed the oases. A deep moat girds the castle.
Flower gardens girdled the bird bath. Guests ringed the coffee table.

John Coxon

2006-04-28 13:16:42 UTC

Post by John Coxon
Your main mistake, here, was assuming that we all (a) realised you were
quoting a scripture and (b) assuming that we all knew it was taken from
the King James edition.

For pete's sake, it's in dictionary.com, even. You guys should sue
whoever provided you with english lit instruction.

...why would your English teacher teach you archaic English, prithee, sire?

--
John Coxon
ZZ9 Secretary - http://www.zz9.org/

I never met a piece of chocolate I didn't like.

LiveJournal: http://johncoxon.livejournal.com/
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN

Robert

2006-04-28 14:47:55 UTC

Post by John Coxon
...why would your English teacher teach you archaic English, prithee, sire?

Actually it's not archaic, for one. Secondly, well, maybe I'm old
enough to expect too much from an education system, public or private,
but an exposure to the classics would have rendered this useage less
opaque, eh? Thirdly, it's not really difficult to look this stuff up on
the web. Certainly very few people have the OED on their bookshelf, but
anybody participating in this conversation has access to the internet.

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/C/CloughArthurHugh/prose/poemsproseremainsv1/chaucerwordsworth.html

Just use 'edit' to find 'compassed'. There's plenty more examples out
there.

John Coxon

2006-04-28 21:57:12 UTC

Post by John Coxon
...why would your English teacher teach you archaic English, prithee, sire?

Actually it's not archaic, for one. Secondly, well, maybe I'm old
enough to expect too much from an education system, public or private,

My mother went through the public education system and my father the
private one. They are currently around fifty years old. Neither was
aware of the use of the word "compass" to mean the same as "encompass"
because one can just use the latter word instead of the former, which
has not been used in common English for, as far as I am aware, almost
fifty years.

I achieved good grades in examinations in English at GCSE and I acheived
100% in the English section of my General Studies AS-level, so I don't
think my grasp of English is at all wanting. I am among the best of the
people I know in my age group in terms of spelling and grammar and I am
what is usually termed among those people online as a "grammar-whore"
aka pedant.

I know better English grammar than some of my English teachers did at
GCSE and definitely better English than the deputy headteacher at my
school does.

Therefore, I don't think there's anything wrong with my grasp of
English, and I'm going to quite happily carry on in that belief and
ignore people who are pedantic enough to suggest that people should know
all the old definitions for certain words (although I do remember that
the word "nice" was originally a synonym for "accurate", courtesy of
Messers. Pratchett and Gaiman in their fantastic novel, 'Good Omens').

--
John Coxon
ZZ9 Secretary - http://www.zz9.org/

Expert (n.): Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.

LiveJournal: http://johncoxon.livejournal.com/
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN

Robert

2006-04-28 22:37:05 UTC

Post by John Coxon
Therefore, I don't think there's anything wrong with my grasp of
English, and I'm going to quite happily carry on in that belief and
ignore people who are pedantic enough to suggest that people should know
all the old definitions for certain words

Ah, dude? Re-read the thread. It was opined that the useage in question
was flat-out wrong and made no sense. I (rather politely, I think)
pointed out that it _was_ proper and even provided a slightly different
phrasing that might have helped to jog a neuron or two loose. YOUR
entry into the debate was:

"No. Encompassed, is the word people are looking for, IMHO."

If you had done the _simplest_ bit of research (simply using a
dictionary) you could have kept your foot out of your mouth. I'm not
being pedantic and I'm not insisting you _should_ know it, I (was)
insisting that you _didn't_ know it - which you did not. Now you do.

I suggest you climb down off that high horse - it's broken if its view
only goes back 50 years.

John Coxon

2006-04-29 06:53:43 UTC

And then you said, "For pete's sake, it's in dictionary.com, even. You
guys should sue whoever provided you with english lit instruction."
This was an attack on my grasp of English, and I therefore defended it.

You went on to imply that my education might not have been very good by
way of saying, "maybe I'm old enough to expect too much from an
education system, public or private," so I countered this with the fact
that my dad went through public school and my mother state school and
they didn't know that it could mean that either.

Thankyou.

--
John Coxon
ZZ9 Secretary - http://www.zz9.org/

Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

LiveJournal: http://johncoxon.livejournal.com/
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN

Robert

2006-04-29 07:25:43 UTC

Post by John Coxon
You went on to imply that my education might not have been very good

Your persistence here is saying far more about you than anyone else.
Two other areas your education is apparently lacking is in "There are
things I actually _don't_ know" and "sometimes you need to cut your
losses and just shut up and move on". You jumped in with both feet
making a flat statement correcting _someone else's_ use of English and
you were flat out wrong. Deal with it.

mr_director

2006-04-28 19:03:26 UTC

Forsooth John! Thou hast just made my day.

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:17:02 UTC

Post by John Coxon
Your main mistake, here, was assuming that we all (a) realised you were
quoting a scripture and (b) assuming that we all knew it was taken from
the King James edition.

For pete's sake, it's in dictionary.com, even. You guys should sue
whoever provided you with english lit instruction.

Heh. I understood it!

But I wouldn't sue anyone over missing a fairly uncommon word. I've been a
copy editor for several small publications and I've been writing in various
places online for years, and I've only come across that word used in that
way a handful of times. And, as a copy editor, I am always recommended to
change the word to "encompass" or its closest synonym based on the context,
unless the author has a particular objection to changing that particular
word.

But maybe that's why people don't know the word... copy editors are trying
to simplify things. :)

(And why not? The English language and its synonyms and word with multiple
meanings and... it's a mess.)

mr_director

2006-04-28 19:00:35 UTC

You don't even know your own words. Compassed is a perfectly fine word
to use! Just because it's old doesn't mean we can't use it (althought
that does apply to some really antediluvian words). You put about
after, that's what was wrong. It doesn't make sense.

mr_director

2006-04-28 18:58:48 UTC

No, it doesn't make sense. The word choice is right, but in the
sentence he created, he should not have followed compassed with
"about." It doesn't make sense at all.

"It is only when Zion is encircled about by the evil one and his
forces..." About should be taken out and then it would work. That's
what I was talking about. I mentioned nothing about context, Mr. Robert.

Robert

2006-04-28 20:52:24 UTC

Post by mr_director
No, it doesn't make sense. The word choice is right, but in the
sentence he created, he should not have followed compassed with
"about." It doesn't make sense at all.
"It is only when Zion is encircled about by the evil one and his
forces..." About should be taken out and then it would work. That's
what I was talking about. I mentioned nothing about context, Mr. Robert.

*sigh* You didn't actually go out and look anything up, try to find the
word useage in literature, or anything like that, did you?
"They moved, mysterious as the desert illusions that compassed them
about."

Revelation of St. John:
"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp
of the saints about, and the beloved city"

Post by mr_director
From Homily XVII, some early biblical _commentary_

"They were unarmed, compassed about by the Egyptians and the sea;"

Thomas More - "Utopia"
"Howbeit as they say, and as the fashion of the place itself doth
partly show, it was not ever compassed about with the sea."
(...)
"The city is compassed about with a high and thick wall full of turrets
and bulwarks."

CARLOS E. ASAY, "A Cloud of Witnesses"
"I rejoice in the assurance that we are encompassed about with so great
a cloud of witnesses,"
(Yes, he used "encompassed". Same argument.)

"Woodcuts" commentary on woodcuts by Professor Troy Johnson
Cal State Long Beach
"They are compassed about with poles stuck fast in the ground,"

The Pains of Hell by John Boys
"And the darknesse of hell is called utter darknesse, to distinguish it
from that inward darknesse wherewith ungodly men are compassed about in
this life."

The Story of the Persian War by Alfred J. Church
"Behind the King came a thousand spearmen, the noblest and bravest of
the Persians, holding their spears in the usual fashion; and after
these a thousand chosen horsemen; and after the horsemen ten thousand
chosen men on foot. A thousand of these had golden pomegranates instead
of spikes at the shafts of their spears. These compassed about the
other nine thousand, who had their spears with pomegranates of silver."

Thomas Vaughan's allegory of the Mountain
"This mountain - by envy of the devil, who always opposes the glory of
God and the happiness of man - is compassed about with very cruel
beasts and ravening birds - which make the way thither both difficult
and dangerous."

THE STORY OF CINCINNATUS (also A. Church and the Baldwin Project)
"After this he compassed about the whole army of the enemy with his own
army,"

THE HIGH HISTORY OF THE HOLY GRAAL
He rode until that he came at evensong to a hold that was in the midst
of the forest. And it was compassed about of a great water, and had
about it great clumps of trees so as that scarce with much pains might
he espy the hall, that was right large. The river that compassed it
about was water royal, for it lost not its right name nor its body as
far as the sea. And Messire Gawain bethought him that it was the hold
of a worshipful man, and draweth him thitherward to lodge.

Using 'about' might be _redundant_, but it's certainly not nonsensical.

I'm done. An 'oops' or an 'uncle' out of you will suffice.

.

mr_director

2006-04-28 21:50:32 UTC

Oops. Uncle. I guess my problem is that I do not feel like forum
discussion should ignite a World Wide Web scavenger hunt of literature
in order for me to understand word choice. Let us get back to the main
topic at hand, shall we?

V is a man who believed in fighting for freedom.

Any opposition to that?

Robert

2006-04-28 22:59:08 UTC

Post by mr_director
V is a man who believed in fighting for freedom.
Any opposition to that?

Haven't seen the movie (I was seriously disappointed by Reloaded and
Revolutions, so I'm not going to be rushing out to see anything by the
W's.)

But in the grander sense of the question? Freedom fighter vs.
terrorist? The victor writes the history. If we (the US) had lost the
Revolutionary War, George Washington would probably be considered a
terrorist.

That said, however, there are some lines that a good
revolutionary/freedom fighter won't cross - not just because it would
be wrong, but to maintain a reasonable image, at least among reasonable
people. (As a current events example, lopping off heads in front of
video cameras might get you a couple of points with the other nut cases
back home, but it doesn't do you any good on the world stage.)

The simple definition of 'terrorism', the use of violence to achieve
political ends, makes _any_ revolutionary a terrorist.

I really think that target selection makes a good litmus test. A
non-terrorist freedom fighter would limit his targets to the mechanism
of oppression - the military and police, for example. Civilians would
be off-limits, and great pains should be taken to avoid any 'collateral
damage'.

Back to your original question: If he's written in such a way that that
_is_ his belief, that'd be hard to argue. But does the movie _show_
enough of his actions that seem to bely that to make it arguable? Some
of what I've read make it seem as though he could be genuinely insane,
which might mean the movie has some whole other point to it.

On the third hand, everybody knows it was just the W's doing some
anti-Bush stroking, so who cares? :) :) :)

istlota

2006-04-29 13:49:13 UTC

Target selection. A phrase like that makes killing other human beings
sound so much more palatable. Then, there is the other phrase you used,
collateral damage. Are you aware that Timothy McVeigh used that same
phrase, "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths of 19 OK City
children?

Istlota

Robert

2006-04-29 16:12:15 UTC

Post by istlota
Target selection. A phrase like that makes killing other human beings
sound so much more palatable. Then, there is the other phrase you used,
collateral damage. Are you aware that Timothy McVeigh used that same
phrase, "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths of 19 OK City
children?

Aware of it? I used the term to specifically provoke the image, and to
see what reaction it would get. You would certainly seem to have
pounced on the terminology at the cost of the message, eh?

I'm not sure what your point is. Both the valid combatant (the 'freedom
fighter') and the invalid combatant (the 'terrorist') are going to
select targets for destruction/assassination/murder - how the action is
going to be classified depends on the actor. Do you expect me to spell
out every single possibility in every possible situation? When the Good
Guy blows up a power plant, it's a 'strategic strike'. When the Bad Guy
does it, it's a 'terrorist attack'. I thought the idea was pretty
clear.

Collateral Damage - The term was in use long before McVeigh made it
commonly reviled, but it's a real term, that's really used, and has
real meaning, and my point stands: the valid 'freedom fighter' is going
to avoid collateral damage; the terrorist doesn't care.

If I'd said "The freedom fighter will avoid unnecessary damage to
infrastructure and/or civilian casualties", does that somehow change
the meaning, or make it more palatable? How so? One is as true as the
other.

istlota

2006-04-30 15:55:30 UTC

So ...how do you personally feel about using violence to force your
will upon others? If you were convinced of the righteousness of your
cause, would that make it okay, in your personal value system, to kill
those who disagree with you?

Istlota

Robert

2006-04-30 16:50:02 UTC

Post by istlota
So ...how do you personally feel about using violence to force your
will upon others? If you were convinced of the righteousness of your
cause, would that make it okay, in your personal value system, to kill
those who disagree with you?

What do my personal views have to do with this?

Istlota

2006-05-01 12:29:05 UTC

Post by Robert
What do my personal views have to do with this?

Come on out, Mr. Wizard. I see you hiding behind that curtain Hollywood put
up for you.

Stop hiding behind Larry W's skirt. Stand up, be a man, and accept personal
responsibility for the consequences of the position you have chosen to
defend.

When people blow up government buildings, people get hurt. That is what
happens in the Real World. How can you not have personal views on the
needless deaths of your fellow human beings?

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:51:54 UTC

Post by Robert
What do my personal views have to do with this?

Come on out, Mr. Wizard. I see you hiding behind that curtain Hollywood put
up for you.

Mr. Wizard was a scientist who performed lab science experiments for a kids
edutainment program on Nickelodeon in the 1980s. You're thinking of the
Wizard of Oz.

Post by Istlota
When people blow up government buildings, people get hurt.

Or power plants, hence why Niobe's act was terrorism as well. That's what
the mr_director was saying earlier. It wouldn't be terrorism if the building
were abandoned, but it would be illegal in countless other ways.

Post by Istlota
That is what happens in the Real World. How can you not have
personal views on the needless deaths of your fellow human beings?

Once again, you're taking the fiction of the movies and applying that to
real world logic. When real lives are NOT taken (such as by a fictitious
explosion that didn't actually happen in the real world), then my personal
views on the needless deaths of MY fellow human beings barely cross my mind,
because they're in no danger. When a real world terrorist plot is exposed...
I think a bit more actively on the subject.

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:38:04 UTC

If they were willing to use violence to offend me with their point of view,
then I would offend with mine. (Note my choice of words. Violence is not
defense; it's offense.)

I have no desire to force my will upon anyone. However, if they attempt to
force theirs upon me and are willing to do so violently, I will fight back.
If I am winning (that's key) and they refuse to give up, then I will at some
point use enough force to stop their violent offenses.

Now, if someone merely wishes to have a debate, then I may share my opinion
with them ad nauseum if I am so inclined at the time, as they may freely do
to me as well. That's not forcing will or thoughts upon anyone; that's just
sharing with whomever may be listening, and they have just as much right to
stop listening as I have to stop talking.

mr_director

2006-04-29 16:37:20 UTC

Robert wrote:
"When the Good Guy blows up a power plant, it's a 'strategic strike'.
When the Bad Guy does it, it's a 'terrorist attack'. I thought the idea
was pretty clear."

Wow. Exactly what I was trying to say before Grammar Wars 2006 broke
out. It's the exact type of thought that Istlota doesn't agree with.
It's because V is not a terrorist. I do not recall him killing anyone
who wasn't directly involved in the oppressive government -- or anyone
who was trying to protect the oppressive government. His targets were
carefully planned government giants. No random little boys and girls.

Comments?

Robert

2006-04-29 18:09:42 UTC

Post by mr_director
"When the Good Guy blows up a power plant, it's a 'strategic strike'.
When the Bad Guy does it, it's a 'terrorist attack'. I thought the idea
was pretty clear."
Wow. Exactly what I was trying to say before Grammar Wars 2006 broke
out. It's the exact type of thought that Istlota doesn't agree with.
It's because V is not a terrorist. I do not recall him killing anyone
who wasn't directly involved in the oppressive government -- or anyone
who was trying to protect the oppressive government. His targets were
carefully planned government giants. No random little boys and girls.
Comments?

Robert

2006-04-29 19:00:18 UTC

Post by mr_director
Wow. Exactly what I was trying to say before Grammar Wars 2006 broke
out. It's the exact type of thought that Istlota doesn't agree with.

Hhhm. Must have missed that. Is this regarding V specifically or
as a general definition, a starting point?

Post by mr_director
It's because V is not a terrorist. I do not recall him killing anyone
who wasn't directly involved in the oppressive government -- or anyone
who was trying to protect the oppressive government. His targets were
carefully planned government giants. No random little boys and girls.
Comments?

Well....litmus tests aren't perfect. :) (I should mention again I
haven't seen the movie.) But there's other 'tests' of legitimacy. How
much popular support does V seem to have? (historically it appears you
need 10% of the population supporting an insurgency for it to be
victorious; next question: does victory equal legitimacy? Well, it will
in the history books.)

In the end, it's going to depend on perspective.

Istlota

2006-05-01 12:57:29 UTC

Both of you are clinging, with eyes wide shut and hands clamped tightly over
your ears, to a definition of terrorist based solely on a self-serving
sibboleth, a circular system of reasoning.

We are not having a rational discussion between adults. I feel like a parent
trying to reason with their child:

PARENT: Why is V not a terrorist?
CHILD: Because he is a Good Guy!
PARENT: Why he is a Good Guy?
CHILD: Because the Ws say so!
PARENT: Why should anyone accept the Ws definition of who is, or is not, a
terrorist?
CHILD: Because I say so!
PARENT: Why do you say so?
CHILD: Because V is not a terrorist!

When you are done amusing yourself with the Internet, when you step away
from your computer, when you finish patting yourself on the back and
congratulating yourself on what a fine job you did putting that Istlota guy
in his place ... ask yourself the following question:

Is there a Source of Universal Truth?

Istlota

Robert

2006-05-01 19:39:04 UTC

Post by Istlota
When you are done amusing yourself with the Internet, when you step away
from your computer, when you finish patting yourself on the back and
congratulating yourself on what a fine job you did putting that Istlota guy

Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
pointless, as far as I'm concerned. And if you'd actually READ what I
was writing instead of projecting whatever it is that you think I'm
saying, well....forget it. You've got some sort of serious reading
comprehension difficulty going on there, or your newsfeed is totally
borked and you're seeing about 10% of this thread. Either way, not my
problem.

Istlota

2006-05-02 22:24:06 UTC

Post by Robert
Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
pointless, as far as I'm concerned.

The subject here is "V for Vendetta". Why are you participating in it if you
have no opinion about V?

You have posted opinions about V here. Since you posted earlier that you
have not seen the movie, I guess that makes them uninformed opinions. But,
even so, having made such opinions public, it is not unreasonable to expect
you to defend them.

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:54:02 UTC

Post by Robert
Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
pointless, as far as I'm concerned.

The subject here is "V for Vendetta". Why are you participating in it if you
have no opinion about V?

Studios make movies to make money. Writers make money to make money and to
showcase their artistic expression. People br

Post by Istlota
You have posted opinions about V here. Since you posted earlier that you
have not seen the movie, I guess that makes them uninformed opinions. But,
even so, having made such opinions public, it is not unreasonable to expect
you to defend them.
Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:54:56 UTC

Post by Robert
Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
pointless, as far as I'm concerned.

The subject here is "V for Vendetta". Why are you participating in it if you
have no opinion about V?

Trying again...

Studios make movies to make money. Writers make money to make money and to
showcase their artistic expression. People browse Usenet to participate in
discussions.

Having an opinion is not a prerequisite for discussion of any topic.

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:53:26 UTC

Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
pointless, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not that it's pointless. It's just that he missed the point.

But he is trying. And it is entertaining me.

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:31:48 UTC

Post by mr_director
V is a man who believed in fighting for freedom.
Any opposition to that?

And if Hitler had won WWII...?

The losers of any war often still believe that the victor's leaders were
terrorists, but the opinion dies away over time as the new order grips the
nation. A more democratic society might remember its own semi-terroristic
ways from time to time, if only to keep itself in check. (After all, here we
are... Americans considering the possibility that our founding fathers were
terrorists in some eyes.)

Sandman

2006-04-29 07:22:44 UTC

Post by mr_director
Oops. Uncle. I guess my problem is that I do not feel like forum
discussion should ignite a World Wide Web scavenger hunt of literature
in order for me to understand word choice.

Fair enough - but then you're expected to not COMMENT on them, unless
you have investigated your claim thoroughly. Right?

--
Sandman[.net]

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:19:50 UTC

In other words, the problem was consecutive prepositions, not the verb.

Sandman

2006-04-28 14:42:12 UTC

Post by mr_director
No, the argument doesn't go that way. That's not what I said at all. I
said that there are no such things as "terrorists." Terrorism is
subjective. That's what I'm saying.

Eh? Terrorism is the use of violence and/or intimidation in the
pursuit of political goals.

Are you claiming that such things are all subjective? What part of it
are subjective? The violence? The intimidation? The politics?

In what was was 9/11 not an act of "violence in the pursuit of a
political goal", to use recent event referred to as terrorism?

--
Sandman[.net]

mr_director

2006-04-28 19:04:44 UTC

From American's point of view, yes. From another's, maybe not. It's how

you look at it. You can't argue that, really.

Sandman

2006-04-28 19:14:24 UTC

Post by mr_director

From American's point of view, yes. From another's, maybe not. It's how

you look at it. You can't argue that, really.

Since you didn't quote anything, I have no idea what you're replying
to.

--
Sandman[.net]

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:56:20 UTC

Post by mr_director

From American's point of view, yes. From another's, maybe not.
It's how you look at it.

You can't argue that, really.

He just did argue it. You mean, you can't argue *against* it? :)

(Sorry. I had so much fun with the grammar wars elsewhere in this thread,
and I couldn't resist!)

Sandman

2006-04-28 14:50:12 UTC

Post by istlota
mr_director,
I think I understand your point. In the Real World, even most of the
Good People believe physical violence is necessary to protect against
the Evil Doers. After all, the argument goes, even Dr. King was
considered a terrorist by the FBI. Certainly, Gandhi was considered a
terrorist by the British. And, likewise, Mandela was considered a
terrorist by the government of South America. That makes two Nobel
Peace Prize winners who were both considered terrorists by the forces
they were fighting against. So, the argument goes, sometimes we have to
adopt the ways of the terrorists to fight the terrorists.
That is the argument which V makes. And, it is also the message coming
out of the White House and from the Nightly News. And, yet, despite
this argument that flows throughout the entire V movie, you should be
aware that the Matrix movies present the exact opposite argument, which
is that we can only win when we allow the One to fight for us.

But if that "One" fights for use using terrorist tactics, how is that
different than letting "the one" in the white house fight for us using
terrorist tactics, or allowing V to use terrorist activities?

In the end you have to sides that are in conflict - the morality of
using violence (i.e. terrorism) isn't different in letting the
government, V or Neo carry out the acts. You can't move responsibility
away from side X if they choose to let just one inflict violence on
the other side, by choice.

Post by istlota
Here is the message from that scene of the Matrix. Even if we use
physical weapons to fight the machine, even if it seems we win a
temporary battle, our own weapons will be turned against us. We can not
beat the machine with the weapons of this physical realm, be they guns,
bombs, swords, cute black wigs, or whatever.

Why?

Post by istlota
Zion could not beat the Machine until they were finally stripped of all
their weapons of this physical realm, and were left totally dependent
on the One to save them.

That's false logic. The people of Zion were outnumbered. You're
implying that they couldn't have won an even match, muscle-wise. Plus,
the One didn't actually "win" that battle. He ended the war, not won a
battle

--
Sandman[.net]

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:11:03 UTC

Yasir Arafat, anyone?

Actually, I would have just used the example of the American
Revolutionaries. Washington, Jefferson, et al are heroes to us now, but they
were terrorists according to King George III. It's all about perspective...
and who has power when the dust settles.

Post by istlota
That is the argument which V makes. And, it is also the message coming
out of the White House and from the Nightly News. And, yet, despite
this argument that flows throughout the entire V movie, you should be
aware that the Matrix movies present the exact opposite argument, which
is that we can only win when we allow the One to fight for us.

Um, how is that opposite?

In The Matrix, Neo was the One, effectively becoming the chief terrorist
alongside Neo to turn the established world upside down in order to free
people -- many of whom wouldn't even want to be freed if given the choice.

In V for Vendetta, V was "the One", leading a different type of revolution,
but a revolution nonetheless. In both cases, the chief protagonist can be
argued to be a terrorist, but he fights for the people and dies a martyr's
death by film's end.

. . . [snip] . . .

I think you take a lot of the movies too seriously. You're applying so much
fiction to reality. I can understand that it's tough to take a film that
seriously, because it's a work of fiction. Comparing and contrasting to real
events is one thing, but you're connecting ideas that are worlds apart with
silly string.

Sandman

2006-04-28 14:52:44 UTC

Post by istlota
Neo, the One, found the Wisdom to defeat the machine from a woman, the
Oracle. The Greek name for wisdom is Sophia, the name of the real
author of the Matrix. Sophia wrote herself into the story of the
Matrix, as the Oracle, to show the One, and us, the Way. The Way to
beat the machine.

This may just be the most far-fetched connection ever posted in this
group. You're on par with "He's the time program" thread. :-D

--
Sandman[.net]

istlota

2006-04-28 17:50:49 UTC

Post by Sandman
This may just be the most far-fetched connection ever posted in this
group. You're on par with "He's the time program" thread. :-D

You are not alone in his disbelief. No one I have communicated with yet
gets any of what I am saying. And, yet, I must at least put the Word
out. That is my calling, the reason the Source led me out of the
Matrix.

"Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see
it for yourself." - Morpheus

Istlota

Sandman

2006-04-28 19:15:22 UTC

Post by Sandman
This may just be the most far-fetched connection ever posted in this
group. You're on par with "He's the time program" thread. :-D

You are not alone in his disbelief. No one I have communicated with yet
gets any of what I am saying.

What? I "get" everything. I don't have to agree with it, though.

Post by istlota
And, yet, I must at least put the Word out. That is my calling, the
reason the Source led me out of the Matrix.

Yeah, whatever.

--
Sandman[.net]

JPM III

2006-05-04 14:02:19 UTC

Post by istlota
mr_director,

Post by mr_director
1A) Because the studio wants to make money. That's the only reason
studios ever do anything.

But. my previous question was why _the Ws_ would choose the material of
"V", not what _the studio's_ motivation was. But, since you have opened
this new can of worms, let's deal with it.

All motivations stem from the same thing: $$$$$.

The studio wanted the movie made because it would make them money. The
Wachowski brothers loved the material and wanted to work with it. The studio
wanted the Wachowskis to do it because they knew the Wachowskis would make a
quality film out of it. Success all around, even if some moviegoers don't
like it.

Post by istlota
You may have noticed how I keep drawing parallels between the inferior
(simulacra) message of "V" and the superior message of the story of the
Matrix. The story of the Matrix is more than just a movie. It is a
prophecy. And, it has parallels above and below, externally and
internally, in this physical world and within the spirit, the Self.

A false prophecy is not a prophecy. A prophecy requires something a bit more
supernatural than "we manipulated you and, lucky for all of us, things
worked out." The idea of a prophecy was introduced in the first Matrix film,
but it was torn completely apart in Reloaded and Revolutions... which was
the point.

Unless... you mean to say that the entire film is an allegorical prophecy
for the future of humanity... in which case it still isn't a prophecy, but a
bold prediction.

Unless... you mean to say that you already know it's going to some true by
the grace of some divine glimpse into the future, in which case... I'd want
you to tell me more, but as is the custom for anyone who claims to know the
future, you would just be treated as delusional and ignored. So, I'll stick
with my assumption that you meant something more along the lines of
prediction, not prophecy.

Post by istlota
You are incorrect that the studio is only motivated by money. The
studio is part of the machine, part of the indoctrination arm of the
Matrix. The Matrix is motivated, first and foremost, by pure Ego. Money
is involved also, but profit is not #1 on the priority list. Think of
all the Smiths that showed up in Matrix Reloaded. Each just as
egotistical as the next. One appears and another steps up to straighten
its tie, to satisfy its collective Ego. The machine's Ego compels it to
protect its own, even at the risk of losing millions of dollars.
In the case of "V", surely someone high up on the food chain at the
studio must have held their noses while reading the Ws' screen play.
Perhaps, they may even have threw up their last meal while viewing the
story board presentation of V's hideously bloody final fight. But, the
Ws are part of the machine now, and the machine loves it Ego. It must
protect its own, even at the risk of losing millions. So, the movie got
made, even though one of the 14 year olds in my Creative Writing class
could have come up with better dialog.

Um. No.

Post by istlota
"If we lived in the world that V did, I'd want terrorists like him to
bring it down -- as did everyone else who rallied at the end of the
film."
Notice how effective the machine's programming has been on your mind.

It has nothing to do with that. Everyone's opinions are formed differently
throughout their lives based on different experiences, different peers, and
so on. Everyone is going to think differently about everything, because no
two people are the same. And the further apart they are, the more extreme
their differences can be.

After all, we could easily turn your reasoning around on you: look how
brainwashed you are to think what you think.

Post by istlota
When you think of terrorists blowing up the Pentagon, you think, "My
God, how awful!" But, the machine then turns it around, flips the
script, paints you an imaginary picture where an ally of the US,
Britain, is now the bad guy and the terrorists are the good guys .. and
you buy into it! Yeah, you yell at the end of the movie. Hooray for the
terrorists!

Haha. It's about Americanism now? See, if someone had made an America-first
comment, you'd have an argument here. But no one has come close. You're just
full of your own argument... for the sake of arguing.

Post by istlota
Come on, man. You're smarter than that.

Yes, he is.

Istlota

2006-05-05 15:47:28 UTC

Post by JPM III
A false prophecy is not a prophecy. A prophecy requires something a bit more
supernatural than "we manipulated you and, lucky for all of us, things
worked out." The idea of a prophecy was introduced in the first Matrix film,
but it was torn completely apart in Reloaded and Revolutions... which was
the point.

Careful. You are skating dangerously close to admitting that some aspects of
the vision of the original author of the Matrix (who ever that may be) were
abandoned, probably not even understood, by the authors (who ever they may
be) that wrote the screenplay for Reloaded and Revolutions.

Post by JPM III
Unless... you mean to say that the entire film is an allegorical prophecy
for the future of humanity... in which case it still isn't a prophecy, but a
bold prediction.

There is another possibility ... that the film is an allegorical prophecy of
the present.

Post by JPM III
Unless... you mean to say that you already know it's going to some true by
the grace of some divine glimpse into the future, in which case... I'd want
you to tell me more, but as is the custom for anyone who claims to know the
future, you would just be treated as delusional and ignored.

Well, yes, I will be ignored. But, I will tell you more anyway.

Not a glimpse into the future, Asclepius. A glimpse into the now, into the
present.

How to convey the Truth of Spirit to the spiritually immature? That has been
the challenge for sages for so many millennia! Yeshua used parables, simple
stories whose deep spiritual meaning remained hidden from those with eyes
who could not see. Brahmin hid Truth within fictional characters cast into
the roles of teacher and student. The ancients of Kemet simply refused to
disclose Truth unto anyone not first initiated into the mystery system of
the Hidden, the Unknowable, Amen.

In this time, in this age, the true author of the Matrix combined the milk
of the little men of this age (guns, martial arts, violence) with the meat
of the seven principles of he whose name the Greeks changed to Hermes. It
comes across as just sensual escapism to most. But "when the ears of the
student are ready to hear, then cometh the lips to fill them with wisdom."

How can you predict the now, the present? By recognizing that the book of
Revelations is not about the future, it is 3D. Remember the Truths Einstein
rediscovered. That is the vision of the original author of the Matrix ...
who ever he, she, or it may be.

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-06 16:35:14 UTC

Post by JPM III
A false prophecy is not a prophecy. A prophecy requires something a bit

Post by JPM III
supernatural than "we manipulated you and, lucky for all of us, things
worked out." The idea of a prophecy was introduced in the first Matrix

film,

Post by JPM III
but it was torn completely apart in Reloaded and Revolutions... which was
the point.

So... The Wachowskis didn't understand their own script? (Or: Why do you
imply that they didn't write the Matrix? Some have insinuated it, but what
proof is there?)

Post by JPM III
Unless... you mean to say that the entire film is an allegorical prophecy
for the future of humanity... in which case it still isn't a prophecy,
but

Post by JPM III
bold prediction.

There is another possibility ... that the film is an allegorical prophecy of
the present.

If it's about the present, then it's an allegory, not a prophecy. See the
definition of the word "prophecy". :)

Post by JPM III
Unless... you mean to say that you already know it's going to some true by
the grace of some divine glimpse into the future, in which case... I'd

want

Post by JPM III
you to tell me more, but as is the custom for anyone who claims to know

the

Post by JPM III
future, you would just be treated as delusional and ignored.

Anyone busy with the chores of daily life looking simply to be entertained
won't have the mental audacity to look for anything beyond the story's
entertainment value. And that's fine; people have a variety of beliefs, and
our beliefs do not require them to see(k) anything more than what they want
to see(k).

The truth is out there, as they say, but if a person doesn't have the time,
ability, or desire to seek all of it (and ALL of it can never be known
anyway), then so what? There's no problem with that.

Post by Istlota
In this time, in this age, the true author of the Matrix combined the milk
of the little men of this age (guns, martial arts, violence) with the meat
of the seven principles of he whose name the Greeks changed to Hermes. It
comes across as just sensual escapism to most. But "when the ears of the
student are ready to hear, then cometh the lips to fill them with wisdom."

Same technique, different story. Entertainment value for the minds not
seeking further enlightenment, but a fascinating glimpse into a variety of
philosophies that come together to make a particular point. That was all.
It's not scripture or gospel... just a story with a message.

Post by Istlota
How can you predict the now, the present? By recognizing that the book of
Revelations is not about the future, it is 3D. Remember the Truths Einstein
rediscovered. That is the vision of the original author of the Matrix ...
who ever he, she, or it may be.

To predict implies something unknown about the future. If it's about the
present, then it isn't prediction, but something more like deduction. In
other words, this is just a semantical debate over your choice of words, but
your message is still received.

Istlota

2006-05-06 17:47:22 UTC

Post by JPM III
The truth is out there, as they say, but if a person doesn't have the time,
ability, or desire to seek all of it (and ALL of it can never be known
anyway), then so what? There's no problem with that.

Yon are right. It is not possible for mere mortals to know everything. But,
a wise soul still goes to his grave seeking Wisdom. I like to think that
drive is what pulls so many of us to read/watch/write science "fiction". We
were all made in the image of the Creator. That divine spark within us
forever urges us, with a still small voice, to seek beyond the liimits of
this physical realm, to wonder what if there is something, somewhere,
another reality ... one which lies far beyond our physical senses.

One of the great things about parables, fables, etc, is their ability to
flow around imagined obstacles. These struggles we think we have to wrestle
with in this physical realm .... in this Matrix we were born into ... these
struggles to make a living, to pay a mortgage, to be the image of society's
warped vision of the responsible citizen ... all of that just makes us
stones in the stream of universal change. The water in that stream will not
immediately pulverize us. But, over the course of time, the water of
universal change will slowly wear us down.

The great thing about newsgroups is that there are archives somewhere out
there in the Net of any messages anyone has ever posted. Someday, maybe in
the year 2106, some illumined soul will read what you and I are discussing
right now. I wonder what they will think of us? I wonder if they will be
simply amazed that we were so committed to killing each other, to destroying
our planet, and to preventing universal change.

If they will be reading this, that will mean we failed in our misguided
efforts to kill and to destroy. May they be wiser caretakers of this planet
Earth than our generation.

Istlota

JPM III

2006-05-04 13:41:05 UTC