 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Virtual Realities >
The Matrix Loses Its Way: Reflections on 'Matrix' and 'Matrix Reloaded'
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0580.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
The Matrix Loses Its Way: Reflections on 'Matrix' and 'Matrix Reloaded'
The Matrix Reloaded is crippled by senseless fighting and chase scenes, weak plot and character development, tepid acting, and sophomoric dialogues. It shares the dystopian, Luddite perspective of the original movie, but loses the elegance, style, originality, and evocative philosophical musings of the original.
Published on KurzweilAI.net May 18, 2003
You're going to love Matrix Reloaded—that is, if you're
a fan of endless Kung Fu fights, repetitive chase scenes, a meandering
and poorly paced plot, and sophomoric philosophical musings. For
much of its 2 hours and 18 minutes, I felt like I was stuck looking
over the shoulder of a ten-year-old playing a video game.
It's too bad, because the original Matrix was a breakout film,
introducing audiences to a new approach to movie making, while reflecting
in an elegant way on pivotal ideas about the future. Although I
disagree with its essentially Luddite stance, it raised compelling
issues that have drawn intense reactions, including thousands of
articles and at least a half dozen books
Is Matrix-style VR feasible?
There is a lot more to say about the original Matrix than this
derivative and overwrought sequel, so let me start with that. The
Matrix introduced its vast audience to the idea of full-immersion
virtual reality, to what Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) describes
as a "neural interactive simulation" that is indistinguishable
from real reality. I have been asked many times whether virtual
reality with this level of realism will be feasible and when.
As I described in my chapter "The Human Machine Merger: Are
We Heading for The Matrix?" in the book Taking the Red Pill1,
virtual reality will become a profoundly transforming technology
by 2030. By then, nanobots (robots the size of human blood cells
or smaller, built with key features at the multi-nanometer—billionth
of a meter—scale) will provide fully immersive, totally convincing
virtual reality in the following way. The nanobots take up positions
in close physical proximity to every interneuronal connection coming
from all of our senses (e.g., eyes, ears, skin). We already have
the technology for electronic devices to communicate with neurons
in both directions that requires no direct physical contact with
the neurons.
For example, scientists at the Max Planck Institute have developed
"neuron transistors" that can detect the firing of a nearby
neuron, or alternatively, can cause a nearby neuron to fire, or
suppress it from firing. This amounts to two-way communication between
neurons and the electronic-based neuron transistors. The Institute
scientists demonstrated their invention by controlling the movement
of a living leech from their computer. Nanobot-based virtual reality
is not yet feasible in size and cost, but we have made a good start
in understanding the encoding of sensory signals. For example, Lloyd
Watts and his colleagues have developed a detailed model of the
sensory coding and transformations that take place in the auditory
processing regions of the human brain. We are at an even earlier
stage in understanding the complex feedback loops and neural pathways
in the visual system.
When we want to experience real reality, the nanobots just stay
in position (in the capillaries) and do nothing. If we want to enter
virtual reality, they suppress all of the inputs coming from the
real senses, and replace them with the signals that would be appropriate
for the virtual environment. You (i.e., your brain) could decide
to cause your muscles and limbs to move as you normally would, but
the nanobots again intercept these interneuronal signals, suppress
your real limbs from moving, and instead cause your virtual limbs
to move and provide the appropriate movement and reorientation in
the virtual environment.
The Web will provide a panoply of virtual environments to explore.
Some will be recreations of real places, others will be fanciful
environments that have no "real" counterpart. Some indeed
would be impossible in the physical world (perhaps because they
violate the laws of physics). We will be able to "go"
to these virtual environments by ourselves, or we will meet other
people there, both real and virtual people.
By 2030, going to a web site will mean entering a full-immersion
virtual-reality environment. In addition to encompassing all of
the senses, these shared environments could include emotional overlays,
since the nanobots will be capable of triggering the neurological
correlates of emotions, sexual pleasure, and other derivatives of
our sensory experience and mental reactions.
The portrayal of virtual reality in the Matrix is a bit more primitive
than this. The use of bioports in the back of the neck reflects
a lack of imagination on how full-immersion virtual reality from
within the nervous system is likely to work. The idea of a plug
is an old fashioned notion that we are already starting to get away
from in our machines. By the time the Matrix is feasible, we will
have far more elegant means of wirelessly accessing the human nervous
system from within.
Virtual reality, as conceived of in the Matrix, is evil. Morpheus
describes the Matrix as "a computer-generated dream world to
keep us under control." We saw similar portrayals of the Internet
prior to its creation. Early fiction, such as the novels 1984
and Brave New World, portrayed the worldwide communications
network as essentially evil, a means for totalitarian control of
humankind. Now that we actually have a worldwide communications
network, we can see that the reality has turned out rather different.
Like any technology, the Internet empowers both our creative and
destructive inclinations, but overall the advent of worldwide decentralized
electronic communication has been a powerful democratizing force.
It was not Yeltsin standing on a tank that overthrew Soviet control
during the 1991 revolt after the coup against Gorbachev. Rather
it was the early forms of electronic messaging (such as fax machines
and an early form of email based on teletype machines), forerunners
to the Internet, that prevented the totalitarian forces from keeping
the public in the dark. We can trace the movement towards democracy
throughout the 1990s to the emergence of this worldwide communications
network.
In my view, the advent of virtual reality will reflect a similar
amplification of creative human communication. We have one form
of virtual reality already. It's called the telephone, and it is
a way to "be together" even if physically apart, at least
as far as the auditory sense is concerned. When we add all of the
other senses to virtual reality, it will be a similar strengthening
of human communication.
A Dystopian, Luddite Perspective
The dystopian, Luddite perspective of the Wachowski brothers can
be seen in its view of the birth of artificial intelligence as the
source of all evil. In one of Morpheus' "sermons," he
tells Neo (Keanu Reeves) that "in the early 21st century, all
of mankind united and marveled at our magnificence as we gave birth
to AI [artificial intelligence], a singular construction that spawned
an entire race of machines." Morpheus goes on to explain how
this singular construction became a runaway phenomenon as it reproduced
itself and ultimately enslaved humankind.
The movie celebrates those humans who choose to be completely
unaltered by technology, even spurning the bioport. Incidentally,
in my book The Age of Spiritual Machines2,
I refer to such people as MOSHs (Mostly Original Substrate Humans).
The movie's position reflects a growing sentiment in today's world
to maintain a distinct separation of the natural- and human-created
worlds. The reality, however, is that these worlds are rapidly merging.
We already have a variety of neural implants that are repairing
human brains afflicted by disease or disability, for example, an
FDA-approved neural implant that replaces the region of neurons
destroyed by Parkinson's Disease, cochlear implants for the deaf,
and emerging retinal implants for the blind.
My view is that the prospect of "strong AI" (AI at or
beyond human intelligence) will serve to amplify human civilization
much the same way that our technology does today. As a society,
we routinely accomplish intellectual achievements that would be
impossible without the level of computer intelligence we already
have. Ultimately, we will merge our own biological intelligence
with our own creations as a way of continuing the exponential expansion
of human knowledge and creative potential.
However, I do not completely reject the specter of AI turning
on its creators, as portrayed in the Matrix. It is a possible downside
scenario, what Nick Bostrom calls an "existential risk3."
There has been a great deal of discussion recently about future
dangers that Bill Joy4,5,6 has
labeled "GNR" (genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics).
The "G" peril, which is the destructive potential of bioengineered
pathogens, is the danger we are now struggling with. Our first defense
from "G" will need to be more "G," for example
bioengineered antiviral medications.
Ultimately, we will provide a true defense from "G"
by using "N," nanoengineered entities that are smaller,
faster, and smarter than mere biological entities. However, the
advent of fully realized nanotechnology will introduce a new set
of profound dangers. Our defense from "N" will also initially
be created from defensive nanotechnology, but the ultimate defense
from "N" will be "R," small robots that are
intelligent at human levels and beyond, in other words, strong AI.
But then the question arises: what will defend us from malevolent
AI? The only possible answer is "friendly AI7."
Unfortunately there is nothing we can do today to assure that
AI will be friendly. Based on this, some observers such as Bill
Joy call for us to relinquish the pursuit of these technologies.
The reality, however, is that such relinquishment is not possible
without instituting a totalitarian government that bans all of technology
(which is the essential theme of Brave New World). It's the
same story with human intelligence. The only defense we have had
throughout human history from malevolent human intelligence is for
more enlightened human intelligence to confront its more deviant
forms. Our imperfect record in accomplishing this is at least one
key reason that there is so much concern with GNR.
Glitches
There are problems and inconsistencies with the conception of virtual
reality in the Matrix. The most obvious is the absurd notion of
the machines keeping all of the humans alive to use them as energy
sources. Humans are capable of many things, but being an effective
battery is not one of them. Our biological bodies do not generate
any significant levels of useful energy. Moreover, we require more
energy than we produce. Morpheus acknowledges that the machines
needed more than just humans for energy when he tells Neo "25,000
BTU of body heat combined with a form of fusion [provide] the machines
all the energy they need." But if the machines have fusion
technology, then they clearly would not need humans.
In his chapter "Glitches in The Matrix. . ..And How to Fix
Them," (also in the book Taking the Red Pill) Peter
Lloyd surmises that "the machines are harnessing the spare
brainpower of the human race as a colossal distributed processor
for controlling the nuclear fusion reactions." This is a creative
fix, but equally unfounded. Human brains are not an attractive building
block for a distributed processor. The electrochemical signaling
pathway in the human brain is extremely slow: about 200 calculations
per second, which is at least 10 million times slower than today's
electronics. The architecture of our brains is relatively fixed
and unsuitable for harnessing into a parallel network. Moreover,
the human brains in the story are presumably being actively used
to guide the human lives in the virtual Matrix world. If the AI's
in the matrix are smart enough to create fusion power, they would
not need a network of human brains to control it.
There are other absurdities, such as the requirement to find an
old fashioned "land line" (telephone) to exit the Matrix.
Lloyd provides a creative rationalization for this also (the land
lines have fixed network addresses in the Matrix operating system
that the Nebuchadnezzar's computer can access), but given the inherent
flexibility in a virtual reality environment, it is clear that the
reason for this requirement has more to do with the Wachowski brothers'
desire to celebrate old-fashioned technology as embodying human
values.
There are many arbitrary rules and limitations in the Matrix that
don't make sense. Why bother fighting the agents at all (other than
for the obvious "Kung Fu" cinematic reasons) when they
cannot be destroyed? Why not just run away, or in the new movie,
fly away?
Another attractive feature of the original Matrix movie was its
philosophical musings, albeit a hodge podge of metaphorical allusions.
There's Neo as the Christian Messiah who returns to deliver humanity
from evil. There's the Buddhist notion that everything we see, hear
and touch is an illusion. Of course, one might point out that the
true reality in the Matrix is a lot grimier and grimmer than the
Buddhist idea of enlightenment. We hear the martial arts philosophy
(borrowed from Star Wars) of freeing yourself from rational thinking
to let one's inner warrior emerge.
Then there is the green philosophy of humanity as inimical to
its natural environment. This view is actually articulated by Agent
Smith, who describes humanity as "a virus that does not maintain
equilibrium with its environment." Most of all, we are treated
to a Luddite celebration of pure humanity, along with the 19th century
and early 20th century technologies of rotary phones and old gear
boxes, which presumably reflect human purity.
My overall reaction to this conception is that the human rebels
will need advanced technology at least comparable to that of the
evil AI's if they are to prevail. The film's notion that advanced
technology is inherently evil is misplaced. Technology is power,
and whoever has its power will prevail. The "machines"
as portrayed in the Matrix do appear to be malevolent, but the rebels
are not likely to survive with their old fashioned gear boxes. However,
with the script in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, we can assume
that the Rebels will nonetheless have a fighting chance.
Which brings us to The Matrix Reloaded. Like Star Wars and Alien,
also breakout movies in their time, this sequel loses the elegance,
style, and originality of the original. The new film wallows in
endless battle and chase scenes. Moreover, these confrontations
lack any real dramatic tension. The producers are constantly changing
the rules of engagement so one never thinks, "how are they
going to get out of this jam?" One has only the sense that
a particular character will continue if the Wachowski brothers want
that character around for their own cinematic reasons. They are
continually coming up with arbitrary new rules and exceptions to
the rules.
Much of the fighting makes little sense. Given that the evil twin
apparitions are able to magically transport themselves directly
into Trinity's vehicle, and Neo is able to fly like Superman, the
hand to hand combat and use of knives and poles lacks even the logic
of a video game. For that matter, the two scenes of Neo battling
the 100 Smiths looked exactly like a video game. Like so much of
the action, these scenes seemed superfluous and time wasting. Smith
is no longer an agent, and plays no clear role in the story, to
the extent that there was any attempt to tell a coherent story.
About two thirds of the way through this sequel, I turned to my
companion and asked "whatever happened to the plot, wasn't
there something about 250,000 Sentinels attacking Zion, the last
human city?" My companion responded that it seemed that "plot"
was a four letter word to the movie makers. Of course, there wasn't
much time for plot development, given all of the devotion to chasing
and fighting, not to mention an equally drawn out gratuitous sex
scene (well, at least there is one reason to go see this film).
If plot development was weak, character development was worse.
Many reviewers of the first Matrix movie noted that Keanu Reeves
could not act. But his acting in the first Matrix is downright Shakespearian
compared to the sequel. At least in the original, there was some
portrayal of Neo's struggle with his discovery of the true nature
of the Matrix, of his grappling with his role as "the one,"
and his coming-of-age tutorials.
In Reloaded, Reeves acts like he's had a lobotomy, sleepwalking
or rather sleep-flying through the whole movie. His lover, Trinity
(Carrie-Anne Moss), is equally distant and unemotional, acting like
a frustrated librarian with a black belt. Morpheus was appealing
in the first movie with his earnest confidence and wisdom. In the
new film, he's like a preacher on morphine, which quickly gets tiresome.
The philosophical dialogues, which were refreshing in the original,
sound like late-night college banter in the sequel. As for the technology
of the movie itself, there was really nothing special here. They
did trash about 100 General Motors cars on a multi-million dollar
roadway built especially for the movie, but aside from bigger explosions,
the effects were the opposite of riveting. Some of the organic backgrounds
of the city of Zion were attractive, but they were all illustrated,
and lacked the genuine warmth of a real human environment, which
the movie professes to celebrate. The Wachowski brothers' notion
of human celebration is also a bit weird as portrayed in the retro
rave festivities on Zion to honor the return of the rebels.
Although I take issue with the strong Luddite posture of the original
Matrix, I recognized its importance as a forceful and stylish articulation
in cinematic terms of salient 21st century issues. Unfortunately,
the sequel throws away this metaphysical mantle.
1. Glenn Yeffeth, Ed., Taking
the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and Religion in The Matrix
(Ben Bella Books, April 2003)
2. Ray Kurzweil, The
Age of Spiritual Machines, Penguin USA, 1999
3. Nick Bostrom, "Existential
Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenario and Related Hazards,"
2001
4. Bill Joy, "Why
the future doesn't need us," Wired, April 2000
5. Ray Kurzweil, "In
Response to," KurzweilAI.net July 25, 2001
6. Ray Kurzweil, "Testimony
of Ray Kurzweil on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology,"
KurzweilAI.net, April 9, 2003
7. Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, "What
is Friendly AI?," KurzweilAI.net, May 3, 2001
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
AI will rule the world
|
|
 |
|
The Plot
The Matix Reloaded and Revolutions are really one story, as I understand it. Therefor judging the plot of Reloaded isn't really possible and it naturally feels incomplete, maybe even incoherent. I think we should postpone our judgement of the plot until we have seen Revolutions. True, we're not used to watching a movie with an incomplete plot, but the Wachowski brothers in many ways do not follow the rules of conventional filmmaking. And now they're presenting one story in two movies, why not. It's only a problem if you expect the movie to be complete in itself. The Matrix Trilogy presents a modern mythical theme: Artificial Intelligence will one day rule the world. In Revolutions machine and biological intelligence will probably realize that they need to merge in order to enjoy the full potential of the universe and we'll all leave the Theater with the familiar feeling of a happy Hollywood ending.
The Power
Ray says: "Technology is power, and whoever has its power will prevail." If this is true, we would ideally want to see some form of distributed or decentralized power, in much the same way the Internet is a means of "worldwide decentralized electronic communication". Or, maybe Technology will soon become too powerful for humans to be in control of it. We say that power corrupts because human beings in power have often misused that power. Terrorism is another example of human beings unable to handle power. Human beings and power don't seem to go together very well. From this perspective it would make sense to give our power to some Strong AI that doesn't have the human desire to dominate or exploit for its own purposes, but does share the great human values.
Ray: "Unfortunately there is nothing we can do today to assure that AI will be friendly." But maybe there is something we can do! A program could be funded that would research how to create (genetic) algorithms that reflect the highest human values, anticipating the moment that Strong AI will rule the world because we've asked it to! This is better than waiting for some happenchance Strong AI that has't learned what we value and being destroyed by it. It might also be better than the power of some strong AI in the hands of a single human being or of a small group of human beings. That might lead to a dictatorship that we would be unable to ever free ourselves from.
Does anyone know of such an initiative?
Timothy Schoorel
www.7freedom.com
ts@7freedom.com
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
Given my tremendous respect for Mr. Kurzweil's superior brain, I am shocked to read this review. With utmost respect, I am compelled to say, "Come on, Ray, it's a movie!"
I recently saw William Gibson on tour for his new book "Pattern Recognition." When asked about how his works have predicted certain advances in technology, Gibson replied, "Look, all science fiction is about the present."
In his review, Mr. Kurzweil says, "The use of bioports in the back of the neck reflects a lack of imagination on how full-immersion virtual reality from within the nervous system is likely to work." I disagree. The bioport (along with the power plant) is a plot device to represent a direct connection of man and machine.
The movies are NOT about the potential of virtual reality; they are about the distinctions between illusion and truth, control and choice, fate and free will.
The movies are not about the potential of using human beings as literal batteries; they are about faceless, impersonal superpowers (governments, corporations, etc.) distracting us from revolution while they covertly drain the life from us for their benefit.
"The Matrix Reloaded" is a movie, not a documentary. And, as Timothy mentioned in a previous post, who knows what the Wachowskis have planned for the second half of this sequel?
It sounds like the movie that Mr. Kurzweil WANTED "Matrix Reloaded" to be would be much more realistic... and it would also suck as a movie. I mean, come on, Ray! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
And what if this movie was just about "making money"?
This movie and the ensuing discussions that follow are nothing more than mere distractions to the bigger picture out there. So far, we're alone in the universe, and without stimulants, we'd go nuts.
The way some people debate about this plot, you'd think they owned a 'share' in the movie company or a stake in the film's success.
Get a grip folks. It's a flick and really, Hollywood has been at the forefront of selling us alternate realities for some time. For once, I'd like Hollywood to shut up with its techno-babble.
We have pros and cons to all of this. Technology by its very nature is useful but can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Human nature dictates that humans are extremely dangerous. Our very actions have threatened all life at many levels. But now, we are pursuing the possibilities of removing command and control from non-sentient species (at least, for now) to do work for us in an unfettered fashion.
Can we trust ourselves to do this? I know Kurzweil has this glorified view that all is well and that Bill Joy is smoking neural-ganja...the reality is that humans are prone to failure and we replicate this failure into everything we do. If we did not, planes would never crash and we would never make mistakes.
So let's take a red pill folks. If Hollywood and others want the future they try and 'predict' or 'create' in their movies, move to another planet. As a technologist in my own field, I sometimes wonder if technology has benefited us (it has) greatly or caused more harm than is necessary.
We speak of virtual reality as a cool future option...to do what? To further cloud are very existence, numb our restless souls (of who we are, why are we here, what are we doing), and create new channels of distraction from the large pool that we already access.
This is a movie about making millions of dollars and giving ordinary folks a virtual escape into something. A distraction. From reality.
Get it? Why even try to "understand" or "theorize" on the plot. Are we Zen masters now? :-)
Alex / The Ronin
FP.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
The thing is, for several reasons it's not just another Warner Bross movie.
Simply because for many earthlings this movie and its merchandise are easily accessible (almost unavoidable), very persistent sources of information. Anything close to their unrooted imagination on this subject people are easily convinced to believe, or consider possible. It's abracadabra to them anyway. And it's become so huge, it's big enough to have an impact on the average way people feel about the world we live in, and the way we expect things are going. The economic implications off loss of faith in the ability of gaining happiness are surely potentially significant.
Because it is too close to reality to be immediately rejected, and because people are not equipped to examine the bullshit-factor of its scientific implications, it will easily alter the way millions imagine the future will look like.
COULD be economically completely harmless, not to add to affluent paranoia for another reason,worth analysing the INfeasabilities of its fantasies however I would say.
For all the great things I admire him for ,Ray does not do great work on that part. In 25 years for joyful living we will have to rely not on a corrupted government, but on the good intentions of the unlimited possibilities of the AI-industry. Ray's reality scares me no less. Luckily it's not so hard to disagree about his neurological argumentation, so don't sell your boat just yet. Ray presents neurons as golfball-like entities that can be switched off and on, in different absolute modes. Thus making it possible to erase and/or overwrite experiences,thoughts, feelings and emotions completely. This excludes any form of memory of the neuron's original state after alteration-impact/interaction: You would not remember afterwards any of your virtual or real experiences if not wanted. If however neurons alter gradually -in stead of abrubt-from one state/function to another, memory would be evident ,as well as mixing up virtual input and reality. Thereby confusing and traumatising any brain hopelessly. Ray nor anyone else knows about the true essence of neurons. Different concepts are equally reasonable: Let me visualise one alternative: Neurons are colored, liquid-like balls. They can alter from one color to another, changing it's behavior accordingly. After alteration-impact/interaction for example, a yellow neuron will want to transform into a blue one. On the way there first it turns green. (In you're VR you are already a superhero, but at first you appear to be the Mask). Before turning fully 100% blue, they already "function" blue. Yet there are still some traces of yellow left.(In VR :You look like Hercules but move like Ozzy) The impossibility of turning back neurons completely in their "original" state could frustrate VR-entertainment for a few decades more than 3.
Then again,they may not. Anyway: Don't waste your time on this spectacularly stupid movie; go see English movie "24 hour Party People" instead: How to alter perception the 20th century way. Enjoy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
"Virtual reality, as conceived of in the Matrix, is evil."
Not so. They use VR for training in the first movie and as control centers in the second. The Matrix is "evil" because it is simply a mechanism to allow the machines to control humans.
"But if the machines have fusion technology, then they clearly would not need humans."
Yea, but then we wouldn't have The Matrix would we. Many good stories, if you really look at them, are based on preposterous conclusions. It need not (and should not) detract from the real focus of the story.
I prefer to think that the machines need the humans so that they can evolve. The matrix is a simulation that allows the AI to evolve. AI will not dream nor have sexual intercourse. AI will be ruled by maathematics. ALthough they have superior capacity, they are not creative and can not always anticipate human choices. Since there's always been a resistance to the machines, the machines need humans to better understand how the resistance will stike at the machines.
Basically, you can't really trust what Morpheus knows about the Matrix because it was told to him by a program in the Matrix.
"Why bother fighting the agents at all (other than for the obvious "Kung Fu" cinematic reasons) when they cannot be destroyed?"
But they can and are destroyed. The problem is that agents are in almost-limitless supply (limited by the number of humans that the Matrix is willing to scrafice for use by agents).
Also, the fighting must be hand to hand combat because everything "physical" in the Matrix can be manipulated. The programs must fight using the most powerful hand to hand combat techniques.
"Smith is no longer an agent, and plays no clear role in the story, to the extent that there was any attempt to tell a coherent story."
Maybe you missed a key point when Smith took Bane's body and "exitted" through the telephone as Bane? I think it foreshadows what we will learn about the Matrix in Revolutions.
Anyway, I don't see the same "strong Luddite posture" in these films that you see. Rather, they are about control and choice/freewill. The only reason they are fighting the machines is because the machines insist on controlling humanity. Certainly there are going to be Luddites in the crowd simply for the fact that they've been controlled by machines so they choose to draw the simple conclusion to despise all machines. I think the conversation between Neo and the Councillor in Reloaded about the engineering level expressed this well. That is, we rely on machines and they rely on us. There must be a balance of control that is acceptible to all otherwise there will be conflict. The Matrix is unacceptible control. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, it gets kids talking, and that's enough for me!
|
|
|
|
Dear Ray,
With much love and respect, I must disagree and say that I found the Matrix to be a riveting film. While your vision of the future is much more probable then the Wachowski brothers', I suspect the dystopian future put forth by the Matrix makes for a better movie.
Furthermore, the days of 2001: A Space Oddysey are gone. People will no longer shell out $9 (plus a $1 online booking fee) to see a ScFi director's drawn out, if interesting, musings of the future. The masses want intelligent content, but wrap it in a sexy, action-packed Kung Fu tortilla or we're going to wait and download it from Kazaa.
While hardcore geeks may not like the detours the movie makes away from intellectualism and towards sex and action, I am thrilled to see those factors bring in droves of young people. I can guarantee that the Matrix series has brought about more conversations among young people -- young people that will be instrumental in building the world you talk about in your books -- then all of the academic books ever written about AI and VR combined.
Young people are thinking and talking and discussing the future of our race, world, and technology because of these movies. How can that possibly be a bad thing?
-Julius Schorzman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
I'll start by saying that I agree with those reviewers who believe the new "Matrix" movie is not as good as the first one. The first one held together better, I think, and was less clunky in its transition from action scenes to the dorm room bull sessions. Perhaps the bar has been raised. The bullet-time fight scenes don't seem as "cool" this time out.
However, I have a few disagreements with Kurzweil's review.
"The Matrix: Reloaded" is a comic book brought to life on film. It's not an engineering textbook. Of course the technology is unrealistic. Nothing like "the Matrix" is likely to ever exist, and the idea that an AI of the evident complexity of those in the film would need to use humans as a source of electricity is preposterous. But so what? I generally do not expect science fiction movies to be scientifically realistic. All I ask is that the pseudo-science be consistent within the context of the story. (That's where most of the newer Star Trek shows fall apart--too many technological rabbits pulled out of hats at the last minute.)
Attacking the veracity of the "Matrix" technology is akin to trashing "Hamlet" because the action of the play is set in motion by the appearance of Hamlet's father's ghost. Of course ghosts do not exist, but Shakespeare is only asking you to believe in that ghost for the duration of the play. Even in his day, many educated people didn't put much stock in such things. However, the ghost is an interesting way to focus Hamlet's thought on his dilemna.
This leads me to another observation about Kurzweil's review. Unlike Ray, I never got the impression that the filmmakers are particulraly Luddite in orientation. In fact, I don't think "the Matrix" is primarily about technology at all. Yes, the vision of the movie is dystopian. Yes, the AIs are evil. But without the conflict inherent in the setup, the movies wouldn't be very interesting. No conflict, no story. If the movies were about a happy AI paradise, it wouldn't be able to use the conflict as a device to ask its philosophical questions. Perhaps Ray's vision of the post-singularity utopia is correct; I have my doubts because I don't think Murphy's Law will ever go away. But I do think the movies might make people pause before uncritically accepting potentially dangerous technologies. But I don't think that is a particularly Luddite position.
I do agree with Ray that the storytelling is seriously lacking in the second movie. The impending destruction of Zion, so important at first in the story, gets shoved aside as being essentially unimportant, once Neo talks to the Architect, and I think that is an unsatisfying development. I also agree that a couple of the fight scenes seem pointless. I'm hoping that some of the loose ends are tied up in the third movie. (For instance, do Neo's superpowers indicate that the characters are inhabiting a Matrix within a Matrix? What is Agent Smith's importance? Is the Oracle evil? Why would the Architect continue his "One" experiments? Does it indicate that the Matrix is flawed?)
One other area that I thought was lacking in the new movie is the philosophical discussions.
The first movie asked some interesting questions about the nature of the average person's relationship with the society he/she inhabits, and about the nature of reality itself. It can be seen in many different perspectives. A Marxist reading, for instance, might equate the people stuck in the Matrix as akin to alienated proletarians who go through the daily ritual of production and consumption in order to distract themselves from the true nature of their economic and political predicament. Similarly, a Buddhist could interpret the movie as a parable demonstrating the Buddhist doctrine that the life we lead is an illusion, and that enlightenment comes when we wake up to that truth. And so on. I don't think either of these readings, or any number of others that I have seen are necessarily the "correct" ones. But the fact that a piece of popular entertainment could be read in so many different ways is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons why the first movie was taken more seriously than "Spiderman."
I don't think this stuff was handled as well this time out. In fact it reminded me of the painfully bad dialogue in the last Star Wars movie, when Annakin starts talking about politics. However, it does ask a few interesting questions about the nature of choice and necessity.
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
First let me influence your opinion of what I'm about to say by first pointing out that I'm 15 years old and I have a lot of opinions about both intellectual and mass-produced topics, and most of them don't agree with the typical layman.
Also I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with Mr. Kurzweil, because his opinion is just as important as anyone else's. Plus it's his site.
When I got into the first Matrix, I respected it for bringing up so many philosophical questions and making even the most mundane of my friends question their existence. I respected the Wachoski brothers for bringing some intelligence to the silver screen and presenting it in a format that anyone can understand.
The sad, sad fact is that the only way you can get someone's attention nowadays is to entertain them. Blast them with bass. Guns. Chicks. Cars.
I really can't stand it either. No one has seen "A Beautiful Mind," but everyone has seen "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." Don't get me wrong, that was a great movie too. But the fact remains, entertainment is really the only thing we have left nowadays.
And after seeing Reloaded, I lost some of my respect for the Wachowskis for what is, to me, a blatant disregard for what they had created. They had traded intelligence for violence, they had exchanged brains for blood.
Which makes me wonder... if entertainment is the only way to capture the typical American's attention span, then isn't the entertainment industry the real matrix here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
I must say, my first reaction to seeing The Matrix Reloaded resonated in many ways with the above review by Kurzweil. And in spite of the many protests which follow the review, and the ostensibly mythological and metaphorical significance which underlies the techno-glamour extravaganza, I still think the movie could have been even better if it were even more intelligent on the surface, not just in subtle, quasi-philosophical ways. Sure, the movie is a grand technical marvel and good-vs-evil action flick, but the logical inconsistencies and pseudoscience are unnecessary, distracting, and annoying. Having said all that, I'll try watching it again to see if I can just get into the cultish mindset of it, and enjoy a nice metaphorical ride through a world of suspended ratiocination...
p.s. I guess I'm not the only one who felt like I was trapped inside a kung-fu video game for 2+ hours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
I am not familiar myself with to what is the theory of Ray Kurzweil in essence, but I have been gathering enough as I see to post on the topic of the film. On the people that state that this film has flaws regarding the technological reality of virtual made worlds and so on should review their concept of what should be represented in a movie. And of what a movie is basecally. But the thing that has gotten the most of my attention here is that no one seems to realize the pondering of thought which the film has made it's way up. Everyone has something to say about it. They compare, sometime detain in one aspect or another, and most of the time seem to come out with a poor overview of what they saw. Comparing the fist film with the second may be natural up to some point, but it is absolutly sistemic to view things in this way. By systemic I mean it is an "ego - trip" of what we hope that the film will portray. This is what the second movie itself is about, how far out are your view controled/porjections of/to your mind so that you ellaborate a reality of your own to pass your life in. There is no comparing the two movies, they are interdependend, they complement each other, that is the basis of there filosophical aproach to the themes in the movie.
I see many intelligent poeple write here, but I have read some reviews here that have some very fancy words and are no diffrent than those posted by teenagers who haven't understood the movie and use slang to express themselves. Heil to the Matrix. It is just a movie, but this "just" is the full spectrum of things that a movie is. What is art? "just art" ? I'd say the using the word "just" in a with a lessor meaning is within a prospect that a person did not fully comprehend what is withing the film. I'd say that "just" in a panoramic approach to what the film really stands out to be for itself is to way to delibarate about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
I have just read Ray's review of the film. You people can't be serious about this... This Ray fellow however intelligent he may be simple didn't get it! He endlessle quotes morpheus on how the machines took over us as so on and what not... Go see The First and second Renassaince, the Animatrix, it's FREE do download in the internet! You'll all see what a buff his argument is. Clearly this moreover the sum of an intelligent mind who thinks undestands the major number of concepts and must project them to whereever he see's fit. MAtrix Reloaded is not just a movie. The fact that it detains itself unto the things that happen within the Universe of the film are obvious , but to say that this is a weaker sort of storytelling than the first if simple miss - comprehension of the hole story. To destroy the faith of man, the film shows that the hole population of Zion is the product of "method of control" - "The ONE" is not the "one" at all, he's only what he appears to be beacause his brain doens't fit into the program, he is an anomaly to the programing of the Matrix. Jesus, the fil has so much filosophy if not more than the fisrt, the thing is that it deals is a much particular level, it brings it more to practical terms. There are things that are extremly filosophical that don't need to be said , for instace Serpah having a perfect glow of light within him. Stop to perceive the Buddism behind this and you can have an endless discussion just about this. It's actually funny the reviews that people make. And the rave scene? "gratuitute sex sequence???!!!" The Moralism of that statement!! How about poetry on film?! It's like a 10 years old that see's something he likes but can't do it beacause he's afraid to try, or he's friends will make fun of him so he has to be an outcast and can't join the party and so out of rage he says that everybody in the party is a freak... I can't see how people go for this. And also I see a sad underline to a man that talks about virtual reality,the future of man and machine and makes statements of this absurd "aplitute".One thing it true, if don't see filosophy in Matrix Reloaded, you have never thought your own philosophical ideas to there end, And this remark is beacause of the major vulgarity of arguments that are stated from alot of people saying the film just sucks. Do say that fight scenes are the same as in video games... What is Kung - Fu ? Philosophy in action. No martial art detains itself from philosophy! They didn't choose to make these fight scenes without reason. And I don't mean comercial reasons...
Ahhhh... whatever....
suit your own minds..indulge in poverty |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
I seem to remember a movie called Tron where the master control program (MCP) took software as prisoners and had them play on the game grid to increase MCP's power (early AI?) Obviously there is some "agents" in Matrix designed to use genetics to improve the program (maybe Oracle?) The task controlling processes which Smith originally performed seem to have acquired a virus from Neo. There was no Zion, ever, unless you want to view this as the holding pen for the candidates in time out from play on the grid/matrix. But now the main program has problems as these "bugs" in Smith assert new tendencies. Note: I too thought the fighting was superfluous, but upon reflect can see many human traits in the futile struggles humans make even when they have the answers - a sense of bad habits. In the context of the Matrix, this all points out to the degree of the coverage of the program. It knows no other way but to fight even if it could generate new ideas. Utilizing new code means it has to be referenced in the appropriate processes, it has to have the right links created by "thinking" before the reactive mind (production system) finds it handy. If it is using statistics, it has to bring that solution up in scoring before it takes over. I am still debating how you would find a cyper program to create keys to unlock different access levels within the system. It reminds me of the layers of privledge protecting core functions like in the old HP OS Bruno (technology which probably still is commonly used today.) But where would such a keymaker normally be in a computer system? Door of perception kind of rings a bell in the philosopical sense (could some drug like anomality be suggested here?) The interesting twist is that the Source probably doesn't have much to do with the processes running in it any more than, say, "Windows" can stop viruses from happening. It may be able to see all the threads and tasks running, but it doesn't have the programming to arbitrarily modify their code. It is not architected for that function. On the other hand, if new machines are being built, the Source can tranfer its power to new OS's containing improvements as they take over the duty of computing. A new OS (version 7?) still has to fit the existing standards (architecture) or it will osolete all the programs and thus cause catastrophic system failure. Can a new OS be installed before the Smiths cause too much damage and is Neo the best software agent for improving the Matrix? Didn't he get into a loop at the end of the program. I seem to remember he was not responding towards the end. Maybe he was off-line to retrain his nueral net. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
I agree with Ray that The Matrix:Reloaded was light on substance and heavy on borish special effects. Everything that the first movie was, the second was not. I am surprised that there are no postings on here about the Nietzche overtones to the second movie. Nietzche came up with a theory to describe life. In it he said that the world was made up of two types of people, Aristocrats and Slaves. Aristocrats are creative, original and self-aware,(obviously, the rebels...Neo, Trinity, Morpheus and so on...). Slaves, on the other hand, are everything the Aristocrats are not....(unimaginative, unoriginal, and most definetly not self-aware,(the rest of the 'plugged in' population). Nietzche theorized that as long as evolution is continuing, (he called it nature), it will one day create a 'superman'. The first thing that this superman will do is that he will destroy nature..(evoulution). In this way, he will be, in effect, God. Now, given the ending of Matrix:Reloaded, it is easy to see that The Matrix has a continuing flaw, and that is that it keeps creating supermen. This latest version of the matrix, (Matrix 6.0), has once again created a superman, (Personified by NEO). As the "architect" so glibly stated, each of the past five supermen decided to destroy nature, so that they might be able to rule their own personal world. The Wachowski Bros. deviated from the Nietzche world by having NEO choose to not destroy all possible competitors but in fact to try to save them. This was a very interesting plot twist, that in my mind saved the movie from being a complete disaster. If it weren't for that one scene with the 'architect' near the end, this movie might very well have had absolutely no redeeming qualities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
There are problems and inconsistencies with the conception of virtual reality in the Matrix. The most obvious is the absurd notion of the machines keeping all of the humans alive to use them as energy sources. Humans are capable of many things, but being an effective battery is not one of them... But if the machines have fusion technology, then they clearly would not need humans.
The artificial intelligence that controls the matrix is another life form. It wants to live. Humankind is the only menace to its existence. As agent Smith put it in the first movie, humans are like a virus, they spread until they fill all available space and consume all the available resources, and then they move on. Humankind is rarely cooperative, but competitive. Most of the time when men encounter others, some degree of warfare begins. Maybe it will be just an unconscious struggle for natural resources. But it can escalate to full conscious annihilation. What happened with the Neanderthal?
There was war between men and the machines. For men it was a war for dominance, but the machines were fighting for their lives.
If the matrix is evil why does it exists in the first place? If the matrix AI is just a cold calculating machine, why it just not did the logic and most efficient thing and sent humankind into oblivion? When the war was won by the machines, to exterminate the surviving human would be the logic thing to do.
Does anyone tried to calculate how much energy it will take to maintain the matrix. To feed billions of sleeping humans. And what about the processing power needed to maintain the simulation?
There is something wrong.
I don't think the machines need humans in any sense.
For some reason they want us to live. But they had run simulations and they had foreseen the possible futures and they realized that if they ever release humankind again. Men will find someday, somehow, a way to destroy the machines. So the best they could do was to lock all men inside a bubble in such a way that they would never know that they were prisoners in the first place.
I don't think the matrix's machines are evil, they just want to live, and we won't let them. What would you do in their place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fed up with Matrix Reloaded critisizms
|
|
|
|
Fed up with Matrix Reloaded critisizms
For a start, at the end of the first film, Neo finishes up pretty much as a God within the world. They had to come up with a way to make the challenges and obstacles he faced in the new film threatening in a real way, and for things to be at stake, where failure is possible. Not easy I'm sure. The use of the Merrolingean (sp?) and his henchmen were a good creation to that effect. Also, as Neo could quite easily spank any Agent at the end of the first movie, they had to 'upgrade' the agents for the second movie (as demonstrated by the line 'Hmm... upgrades' prior to Neos first fight) which also ties in nicely with the whole concept of software, routines, versions, good/bad/rogue programs later on.
Agent Smisth, being a key character to the theme/plot of the first film is also brought back, which may have been a good move. He too has been upgraded in a sense, in that he is more dangerous (as is needed), and is even scarier. Humans (even funky online Zion warriors) are no match for him. Other Agents are no match for him, and Neo has real trouble. He represents a real danger to be faced and overcome.
To begin with, the fights had to be better in the second movie, that goes without saying. Quite difficult too, as the fights in the first movie were so good. But a good fight scene has to have a sense of danger, tension, something at stake as well as jaw-dropping choreography. I disagree with observations that this was lacking.
The first fight in the movie was between Neo and three agents (who we learn are upgrades from the first movie). The choreography was excellent. In fact it was positively sublime, in my opinion. The music in this scene, another important component of the film which _also _ had to equal if not improve on the original, was also sublime.
Incidentally, at this point, I want to complain that Tank was replaced in this movie, as I though he was a strong actor with a good role in the first film, and whose actions/reactions complemented the movie greatly. You could say that about the entire cast, I guess.
The music in the Zion party was also excellent, some of the best music I've heard in years. I think too the brainstorming team for this movie had to come up with music that fitted, was on a par with the original, and which was cutting edge/modern/new music again. Using the same music from the first movie would have meant not not taking the commercial advantage that comes with it, but more importantly it would have been a bit duff. I think they succeeded. I have been to see the movie several times, and each time I remembered a little bit about the movie that I really wanted to see, on one occasion it was simply to hear the soundtrack through a cinema sound system again.
One more thing they had to acheive as a bare minimum, was to break new ground in movie making technique and technology. The fight with agent smith is just that. Setting aside the switch to computer graphics towards the end for a moment, the fight was a MAJOR achievment in choreography between Neo and say, 20 on-screen versions of Agent Smith at any one time. I don't think this have ever been done before, and I think this was incredibly successful, and in my own opinion, an ultra-tense moment, especially when it kicks off and the music builds up.
Thirdly, the whole Merrovingean (sp?) thing - this was excellent, and worth the admission price many times over for me. The idea that there are rogue programs, other 'anomalies' in the matrix than Neo is excellent and prevents the film from being Neo bashing everyone. Again, the music here is an absolute winner, so much so I've bought the CD. Or should I say, the choice of music, and its blending with the choreography. I particularly love the bit where Neo sticks his hand up and blocks one of the henchmans blades on the sharp end, and everything stops for a moment, and the French guy raises an eyebrow. Excellent! :D
The motorway scene is the BEST EVER car chase scene in any movie I've ever seen. The music, machine guns, action, everything.
Did you see the 'camera' going under the oncoming lorries? Utterly fantastic.
The one fight scene 'too many' for me was the one in the tearoom. It was all of a particular style, and wasn't exciting compared to the others. But then, I wonder to what extent some of the down sides of the movie were there because the best had to be saved until the last movie?
As for the plot, well, I have to admit I'm still not sure I understand, which for me is a sign of failure in that respect, and I think the dialogue is mostly responsible. The plot is not as cohenrent as the first film (by a long shot) but hey,and some of the philosophy seems rushed, and unclear. I am going to reserve some judgement until the third movie, but as a movie in its own right, some of the traditional elements on which a movies success is judged aren't strong.
Its the many seemingly unspoken, demanding elements above imposed on it however, by virtue of its being 'the Matrix', which make it succeed. This is what gets my goad about all the critisizm.
Movie making is a science too. Learn a little bit more about it.
There was a line in the original movie 'If an Agent got inside the Zion mainframe, it could destroy us...'
Is this a hint of what is to come? I hope so. Also, did the twins survive, and will they be coming back?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
choice vs fate
|
|
|
|
Jackson wrote:
"Thinking about the Morevingian, I think he could be good but only in a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' sort of way. I don't think he is benevolent because he has such bad characters working for him."
"Bad" is subjective. Is a person who kills another in self-defence "bad?" Our courts say no--such action is justifiably self-preservative.
Jackson wrote:
"I also don't think he serves the powers that be inside the Matrix (I think he's utterly self-serving)."
Perhaps, but then he should've just killed Neo from the onset. Or he could've refused to give any information. Didn't his monologue seem a bit philosophy 101? I know the snobs here (no offence Ray) decry any element below their level of understanding, but maybe Neo doesn't represent the intellectual elite, the philisophical sophisticate. Maybe he represents the avg confused Gen-xer waking up to the possibilities of the world.
It's my hunch that the Wachowskis are moving toward the Hameroff/Penrose theory, which I find disappointing, but understandable. Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesioligist who makes his living by finding ways to temporarilly disable consciousness. Penrose is a mathematician. They believe that consciousness stems from the action of microtubules within neurons (rather than the cumulative action of neurotransmitters). Hameroff came to this conclusion since his method of disabling consciousness involves affecting microtubules rather than neurotransmitters. They believe that consciousness stems from indeterminate quantum states within microtubules. Their conclusion is that consciousness cannot exist in systems that rely solely on binary processing. The Wachowskis may have bought this theory (the philosopher John Searle also argues that consciousnes cannot emerge from a strictly syntactical system). Perhaps the machines conclude that humans' access to consciousness necessitates their continued existence.
All of the criticisms of Reloaded fall to pieces when the critics try to answer this one question:
What better way exists to communicate problems of free will/choice, consciousness and the biological-technological merger? Yes, I found the fight scenes tedious and would've been disapointed in the film without the Architect scene. And yes, I watched more interesting films deal with the problems with more depth and sophistication. My friends think those films are pretentious and, more importantly, boring. Most of my friends tollerated the various monologues of Reloaded in anticipation of the fight scenes. A teaspoon of sugar. And before any a ya'all get too haughty, let me remind you all that at one time you read cheesy sci-fi comic books that in turn stimulated you to find the scientific/philisophical truths beyond fictional limitations.
I sent a handful of copies of Spiritual Machines to friends and family members whom I thought were ready for awakening. Nobody read it. People often get angry at me when I discuss the Singularity. It's not that they *can't* understand--they're just not ready. Films like Reloaded psychologically prepare and stimulate people for exploration. They may be exploring levels far below those at Mind-X, but they're levels above the ones they previously inhabited, and that's a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurzweil Gets it Right
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with Ray's critique of RELOADED. He hit the major points so I have nothing to add except to say, THE MATRIX RELOADED is what can happen to a movie when Hollywood gets its hands on it.
As I understand it, the original picture was basically an Australian independent film which Joel Silver was finally talked into taking to WARNER. When THE MATRIX was produced, it was considered an off-beat risky picture that was very expensive and being directed by two brothers that only had two other pictures to their credit, BOUND, being one of them (a nice little pix BTW).
After the sleeper success of THE MATRIX, the Hollywood machine moved in to exploit the picture. This means that excessive special effects people must be hired and all the crash personnel, that otherwise stand around until they can get employed. Hollywood has to keep the slaver working so usually the studios don't give a shit about whether a sequel is GOOD, all they care about is the fact that they can exploit a certain diminishing return on each sequel and make money. This is the MONEY MAKING MENTALITY I so often speak of in action.
The thing that's interesting is WARNER financed the third installment at the time of the second, so the last MATRIX sequel is already in the can. And believe it or not, most of THE MATRIX fans will still PAY to see this last sequel, so it doesn't matter how crappy it is. It was made at the same time the second was made, so the production costs were low and the studio will therefore profit. The studio will profit because the fans will pay to see just so they can see if it's better than RELOADED (a hope) -- the same way you went and saw all the ALIEN movies even though the third and fourth installments were abortions. You still paid the MONEY MAKING MENTALITY and they fucked you.
Thus, that's basically what Hollywood is all about: Fucking its audiences out of as much money as possible while giving them the bare basics (or hope) of a picture to stay in business. Remember, the average studio executive is in his position for only 18 months, then he leaves the studio to go over and work at another studio where he applies his MONEY MAKING MENTALITY to fuck that studio's market out of their money ' so he doesn't care. And the studios don't market pictures with any special attention to WHICH one made the picture, so you forget who made what -' all you remember is who stared in it, the STAR is the brand, not the studios. And of course this is part of what is known as the STAR SYSTEM in Hollywood. In other words the star system means to blind them with stars so they don't pay any attention to the studio. The when the movie sucks or fucks you out of money, the star gets the blame, not the studio. In this case it's the Wachowski Bros that are getting the blame, not the Warner Bros. Because the Wachowski Bros are the stars and they can be thrown away.
To find out WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD go to http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm
And don't worry, there are increasing numbers of new independent (sci-fi) pictures being made all the time that totally surpass the Hollywood horsehit machine. For instance, here are three pictures that didn't come from Hollywood that I guarantee you will enjoy: STRANDED, EQUILIBRIUM and THE BANK.
James Jaeger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Kurzweil Gets wrong
|
|
|
|
OK todays the day we have the plot ...all of you bashers take this!!!
The Origin of The Matrix: The first version of the matrix was created by the Architect to be the perfect world. The "primitive" minds of humans, however, could not accept the program. The supposed reasons for failure of the first matrix were sin and guilt. Based on these conclusions, the Architect created the second matrix which was based on chaos. He was still frustrated by failure. Then the Merovingian was created to investigate the reasons as to why the humans kept rejecting perfection. The Merovingian came to the conclusion that freewill should be eliminated from the system because perfection and freewill, as demonstrated by the monumental failure of the first matrix, were incompatible. The Architect then created the Oracle to find a solution without eliminating freewill. The Oracle concluded that choice is an illusion and that humans have never truly been free. She discovered that social structures such as government, church, corporations, and family control freewill without actually removing it thus creating the illusion of choice. Based on these conclusions, they set the third matrix at "the peak of your civilization" as the means of controlling free will. Civilization allows for the illusion of choice while supplying the necessary means to supress sin and guilt, the supposed causes of the flaws of the first matrix. However, by allowing the illusion of choice an anomaly eventually became created which could the destroy the matrix itself should the code not be reinserted into the matrix allowing a reboot and removing all problems until the next iteration of the anomaly. "Choice" would bring about the destruction of the matrix and so they relied on faith to save it. The Oracle had to continue inside the system to preserve faith and the belief in the one. This would allow for a continuous faith in the future of humanity from the anomaly and allow the system to continue rebooting. By using many systems of control they were able to keep everything in order and allow the matrix to continue despite one pontentially devastating flaw. The Merovingian chose exile after his purpose was served claiming that the argument as to the removal of choice was unsettled. He remains an exile waiting to prove that his theory of causality and the removal of freewill is the most efficient way to control the humans.
The Sixth Version: In the process of Neo "destroying" Smith, their codes are overwritten onto each other allowing for a connection between the two. Smith, facing deletion while returning to the source, chooses exile. His powers have been altered from either his encounter with the source or the overwriting process that occured with Neo. It is at this point irrelevant seeing as Smith is rapidly starting to have total control over the matrix by infecting it's every living inhabitant.
Now, ever wonder exactly what Smith is doing sneaking around all the time and showing up wherever Neo is? As for being in the back doors, there are two possibilites: either he's able to access them because of his viral code or as Morpheus says the agents hold all the keys.
Smith: "You look suprised to see me, AGAIN, Mr. Anderson. But that's the difference between us--I've been expecting you."
Neo: "What do you want Smith?"
Smith: "You haven't figured that out? Still using all the muscles except the one that matters. I want exactly what you want--I want everything."
We all remember the scene with the Architect--Neo was given two choices: The Matrix or The Source. Had he chosen the right door which leads to the source, his code would have been assimilated into the code for the matrix. The first five times it went perfectly. Neo, however, is different. He is connected to a certain someone that we all know and love; a man, a virus, who calls himself Smith. So, had Neo chosen the door on the right not only his code but Smith's viral code would have been assimilated into the matrix. If Smith infected the Source he would theoretically have control over the entire matrix and the machines. When Smith was about to be deleted he learned more about the nature of the matrix--more specifically the nature of the one or the anomaly. He knew about the choice given to the "Carrier of the Code" and with his new found abilities and hatred of his prison found a way to take advantage of the situation. Now, since Smith knew about the choice he knew that Neo would most likely choose Trinity. The only way to prevent him from choosing Trinity was to kill her. Smith-Bane wasn't going to kill Neo; he was going to kill Trinity. Had Trinity been dead he would be forced to choose the right door, giving Smith total control over the matrix.
Now, the Architect was watching over all of this. He knew what was going on and had no control over it. If Neo chose the door on the right, it would all have been over. Since the Architect is obviously a master at making new systems of control, he used the choice of the one to control Neo--to make him choose the door on the left. He could deal with losing the matrix again. They had lost crops before and they could do it again. They were willing to except that. Since the Architect had made a few matrices before it probably wouldn't take him that long to make a new one and there are already crops of humans being produced constantly. They'd have plenty of power again in no time. And you wondered why the Architect seemed so angry at Neo--he knows human psychology and he knew EXACTLY how to use Neo and how he would react.
So you see, Smith at the Burly Brawl and Smith in the hallway, both times he was trying to overwrite Neo. It obviously didn't work the first time. The second time, Morpheus was with him. He tried to take over Morpheus so then Neo would have no help and no way out. This attempt also failed. Smith's plan failed but as we see in Enter The Matrix he is still keeping himself busy.
Where shall we go now? Let's go with the Oracle. It is very clear to me now that she knew exactly what was going on. "You've already made the choice; you're here to try to understand why you made it." Neo doesn't realize how deep the systems of control go. What the Oracle was reffering to was the "choice" that the Architect was giving him. Now, some of us already knew this but look at it with this theory. It implies that she knows exactly why the Architect wants him to choose that door. Neo thinks it's to save Trinity when in fact it's to prevent Smith from overrunning the matrix. She decides that the only way to end the war is together. Machines and humans must work together. The door on the right would end with the elimination of both races.
Ok, next character. The Merovingian. What exactly was his motive? "What do all men with power want? More power." "I am a trafficer of information; I know everything I can." He knows about Smith and doesn't feel like losing his power.
Merovingian: "But this is not a reason; this is not a why. The Keymaker himself, his very nature, is a means; not an end. And so, to look for him is to be looking for a means to...do...what?"
Neo: "You know the answer to that question."
Merovingian: "But do you? You think you do but you do not."
Mero knows exactly what they want to use the Keymaker for. He probably thinks they will screw it up so he tells them no, they can't have him. Problem solved. This would keep Smith from having absolute power.
I remember somebody saying how dumb it was that the Twins were shooting at the back window and the trunk instead of the gas tank. I think Merovingian has the same interests as the Architect--to keep the matrix alive. As stated before, Merovingian doesn't feel like losing his seat of power so he has the Keymaker to prevent Neo from reaching the source and giving Smith the power. I think that the Merovingian also realizes that Trinity is very important to Neo's decision so he probably told his thugs not to fatally harm Trinity which would explain why they shoot at the back of the car and not the gas tank; they simply want to either keep or eliminate the Keymaker.
The Agents that we see shooting at Trinity during that same chase have a good reason for doing so without going against the theory. If they killed the driver of the car, it would either A) potentially kill the target (the Keymaker) by the car crashing or blowing up or B) make him a sitting duck. So if they could eliminate the possibility of Neo even meeting the Architect, why not go for it? Notice how it was only after she no longer possessed the Keymaker that they stopped chasing her.
Behind the Scenes: Faith, Hope, and Love. Morpheus represents faith. He "believes so blindly" and he never wavers in his beliefs. Trinity represents hope. Hope plays the most pivotal role in the trinity because it is the only way the prophecy can be fulfilled. Neo represents love. His undying love for Trinity is the reason for his "choices" and gives him hope. Hope is something that the previous Anomalies lacked and substituted it instead with faith in the future. Faith requires no action and hope without action becomes faith. Faith is the system of control that the machines had counted on and is the reason for the Oracle to exist. The Oracle is there to instill faith in the Zionites giving them the illusion of choice. She realizes that hope is the only way to overcome faith and plants the love between Neo and Trinity. She sees this as the only way to end the cycle. She is interested in only one thing: the future and she knows that the only way to get there is together. Neo has decided to make the prophecy come true.
The following with astericks in front of them are facts.
*The clock at the Merovingian's restaurant reads exactly 12 PM.
*The clock at the security guards office reads exactly 12 AM.
*12 hours around a clock face makes a full circle
*101 in binary is 5
*314 seconds could refer to pi, which is just over 5
*Pi is needed to make a circle
*At the Oracle's abandoned apartment there is a Pi sign with a circle around and a line through it, meaning "No Pi"
*The Matrix is cyclic
*The Matrix is currently in it's 6th cycle
*Spoon Boy has 5 bent spoons laying before him in M1 and Neo bends the sixth spoon but returns it to it's normal position.
*The date 2-2-2003 appears in The Animatrix episode, Beyond.
Conclusion: These facts seem to point to Neo being "The" One. There are many references to 5 and a "No Pi" sign which, to me, anyways seem to point to the conclusion that the matrix will no longer be cyclic. If it is not cyclic, that means that Neo has not entered the source which means he either a) is dead. b) defeated the machines or c) has decided to call a truce with the machines. Seeing as The Matrix Online states that The Matrix lives on after The Matrix Revolutions and the date for Beyond is well beyond any point in the movies, it seems that the conclusion of Revolutions can be either narrowed down to choice A or C. A and C could be a combonation as well with Neo compromising like the scriptment says.
Credit goes to Ratio, IaMtHeMaTrIx, Spyros, and myself for this theory. Guys, if I missed anything pm it to me and I'll add it in. No need to make THIS thread 30 pages long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Kurzweil Gets it Right
|
|
|
|
>Where is the best place to find some of these films? On the net?
I dug these up at a BLOCKBUSTER believe it or not. They usually have just one or two copies of "good little independent films" so they don't compete too much with the main studio crap, I guess. Another little one I saw last night that was an EXCELLENT little made-in Pennsylvania film is DIAMOND MEN. No stars, just an intriguing plot and characters you care about with a great twist at the end. Probably didn't cost more than $500,000 to make (but it will earn about $5 - $20, especially if it got even a limited American theatrical release to energize the foreign rights).
>Also did I see correct a while back that you have something to do with the rights to Blade Runner?
One of the writers with our company, who is also an owner, has written the perfect sequel for BLADE RUNNER. It's called BLADE RUNNER II: FORCED RETIREMENT. The screenplay is excellent and is absolutely true to the style and feeling of the first picture. It also retains the VO of Harrison Ford. As I write this we are still crapping around with WARNER BROS. and Bud Yorkin's company. Bud, who produced the original picture, is in the process of deciding whether he wants to use our screenplay or some other screenplay that was written by some other writer. If they use our screenplay, which our company has an option on, I will probably be one of the producers on the picture, but I will have to insist that the writer, the one who is with our company, gets to direct. If these things don't happen, neither WARNER or Bud may have the rights to our screenplay.
If I thought anything serious was going to happen with this project, I obviously would not have posted these comments, but I think it is fun to give those of you here at the MIND-X a little insight into the horsehit game of Hollywood from time-to-time.
James Jaeger
>Willie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Matrix Loses - NOT.
|
|
|
|
The Matrix, philosophically breaks down, completely.
In the final (3rd) movie "Matrix Revolutions" the breakdown is complete.
What ideas are acceptable (metaphorically):
1.) A human beings value is converted:equated to a battery-cell (1st movie).
2.) The Matrix; virtual world; is a false-image of the world pulled over their eyes.
3.) This image is created so that they agree to the imprisonment without knowledge of the prison.
4.) The narrative device to make you relate to Neo. He, in the beginning (1st movie), is an average person, who is thrust into extraordinary situations, circumstances that reveal the false-image.
This device takes us (as the any man/woman) and places us in the situation, relating to what Neo (an average computer hacker of no extraordinary accomplishment) is experiencing in similar form.
5.) The metaphor of the Matrix equating (more or less) to unwitting submission to a system, that being any institution or state: religions mythology, the political state, a machine state, a war state, a commercialized system, etc. The metaphor of unwitting submission transfers well.
What ultimately does not make any sense:
a.) The outside war of Zion, the non-virtual AI-machines vs. Zion.
b.) The concept of Messiah.
c.) The meaningless ramblings; on purpose and freedom; by Agent Smith.
d.) The pointless kung-fu scenes (in 2nd movie).
e.) The train station (3rd movie), where Neo's messianic skills are non-existent.
f.) The existence of Neo's messianic skills outside the Matrix's virtual world; existence of messianic super-natural control of the machines in the real world, yet not at the train station.
g.) The continued existence of the Matrix.
The Matrix (1) is good up until the climax, then it breaks down; right at the very end. Paraphrasing Neo in the phone booth at the end of movie (1), " . . . where do we go from here?"
Nowhere!
Messiah is a flawed concept (b.):
One man cannot deliver the masses out of servitude; or bondage; to the system of the Matrix - and doesn't (g.)
The people existing within the Matrix accepting and not rejecting it - living their lives unaware of their bondage and the "dessert of the real"; continue to do so (in the billions) prior to the messiah event and after the messiah event (g.)
Neo's purpose is to reload the Matrix (in 2) and re-start Zion; which might be a lie - so, saving Zion might be re-substituted as Neo's purpose. This doesn't make sense though - if the: re-start Zion re-insert Noe-code into the Matrix was lie; then there never was a need to destroy Zion in the first place. There would be only so-many people the Zionists could free, and the AI-machines would just grow new ones; and do what the AI-machines continue to do. Zion presents no threat to the AI-machine-world (a.); and Zion is of no value to those continuing to exist within the Matrix; who have no idea Zion exists.
The Zionists cannot free the billions within the Matrix; there is no place for them in the "dessert of the real."
If crops of people rejected the Matrix causing the entirety to die (as stated a few times by Smith and the Matrix-Architect); then displacement of belief and non-acceptance of the Matrix could cause the entirety to die as well. Even telling the occupants they are in a Matrix and showing them the reality of the "desert of the real," could cause many or even billions to die. So what is the point of the messiah what is the point of the revealtion "desert of the real," and Matrix movies 2 and 3? None.
The 1st movies appeal was the narrative device; the Neo character; the insertion of any-man; any-woman into a plot with philosophical appeal (unwitting bondage to a system; etc) and the inclusion of interesting real-world developments as science fiction (virtual reality, technology, AI, machine worlds, etc).
The messiah concept was unnecessary in the 1st movie, it could have been the same movie; without the concept.
The messiah concept could be left out ' it freed (in respect to the billions within) nearly none.
Movies
2
and
3
Pointless.
If Neo simply was an any-man; any-woman character, (he has been freed, and he becomes an extraordinary member of a team) simply trying to free those who could not understand reality and why the Matrix felt wrong. "Have you ever wondered, if there is something wrong with the world" . . . "I know exactly what you mean."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
The Wachowski brothers did a fine job with all 3 Matrix movies. No, they weren't perfectly in line with what I would call intellectually on the cutting edge. Virtually no science fiction movie is.
The entire purpose of a movie is to say little things that writings cannot say. They are to be visual, auditory, sensory. Cutting edge science fiction was written long ago and it is still current today --such as-- "Norstrilia" by Paul Linnebarger, or Robert Heinlein.
What does Ray think of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", by Robert A Heinlein? I'd much rather see a review of that! Who cares what somebody else thought about a sensory overload like the Matrix? --unless they're somebody like Kevin Warwick?
Of much more use to someone like Ray Kurzweil, in my opinion, will be the Wachowski brothers' upcoming movie about fascism. "V for Vendetta" will deal with conformity, and the public's willingness to accept the centralization of power. (As well as how that centralization can be, and should be, broken down).
Why? Because Ray Kurzweil seems to think that if we don't take responsibility for our own self-defense, and we trade a measure of our privacy and freedom for security, that we will benefit from that choice. It's true that RAY might benefit from that choice, but abberations of terrorism are more likely to effect his life, than BUSINESS AS USUAL. BAU is what keeps poor black folks in jail -Ray doesn't really need to worry about that (until he somehow makes enemies with the DEA, which is unlikely).
Our prisons are packed with nonviolent drug offenders. These are people who have violated noone else's rights, yet our system treats them like animals/slaves, in great gigantic numbers -hence the allusion to forbidden drug use in the first film. The matrix is less sci-fi than an analogy towards our own CURRENT government.
Ray always acknowledges that the government has a "proper role" but he declines to say how he feels that role should be limited.
This is dangerous, because Ray is a very smart man. The one area where he sorely needs to be less optimistic is in the collective use of force that is government. He would do very well to re-read Ayn Rand's works or, better yet, lysander spooner's "No Treason" and Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose".
He seems poorly acquianted with such freedom-oriented ideas (acquainted with the ideas only because he is very smart, but not because he's thought about them a great deal), and also seems to give short shrift to the idea that the best way to counteract terrorism is decentralized power. He forgets that the most supreme terrorism of all is always, (virtually always historically) a government's terrorism against its own disarmed populace.
If he thinks our current government, or any government, is responsible with its use of force, he is in La-La- Land.
Would Ray stop jailing people for drugs, preostitution, gambling, etc... if he was president?
If not, it is scary to imagine him advocating increased government control, since he can actually do something about it.
Does Ray really want freedom and utopia, or does he want central "order"?
Ray, a few years ago, a woman named Ayn Rand said that she couldn't do anything about death, but if we all learned not to pay taxes, we'd live longer healthier lives.
Now you come along and say the inverse.
She's dead now, but you can still learn from what she wrote. No terrorist with dynamite or even an A-bomb comes close to the evil power of the DEA, FDA, ATF, IRS, etc.....
That's the entire point of the matrix, right there.
Let's hope "V for Vendetta" is clearer.
-Jake Witmer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Matrix Loses Its Way: Review of 'Matrix Reloaded'
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that I agree with 99% of what Kurzweil says, and that I don't doubt that he has good intentions. I also have an optimistic view of the future, but I think, in this one small area alone, I have more first-hand information than Kurzweil does. I have seen how willing people are to use force against one another time and time again, for no reason at all, other than that it was a choice on the ballot box, and someone told them it was a good idea.
Take laws against gambling for instance. In the matrix world, and in ours, goons will run up to you, handcuff you, and process you against your wishes to great personal detriment, if you break their arbitrary laws. The gamblers have hurt noone, except possibly themselves, and they've done nothing riskier than what any restaurant owner has done --took a risk, based on their assessment of their resources, and hoped it paid off. Yet, in our supposedly free country, in most places, there are laws against gambling (etc...), and the American sheeple (once a proud and free people) like it that way: they would rather punish their fellow man with force than tolerate his lifestyle, as long as the only thing they need to do is vote for such force in secret.
I don't believe that wealth necessarily corrupts, in fact, it's often quite the opposite. Ray has no reason to be corrupted by his wealth (he didn't earn his wealth by selling his values), but he may not be paying attention to the way that things actually work for those whom society preys upon. He also does not seem to be opposed to the idea of involuntary taxation, or have much of a moral understanding of what government is.
What is government's proper role? Ray says there are no easy answers to that. I bet a few deathcamp and democide survivors could point him in the right direction...
Does Ray think that government should be kept as minimal as possible? We don't really know, do we? Does Ray think it's OK to put people behind bars for their own good -ie protect them from themselves, through the decisions made by oh-so-wise central planners? We don't really know, do we? What if the FDA had total control over medicine? (since they ultimately resort to force, just like the DEA stormtroopers, they would have total control with strong nanotech...) Would they, instead of killing thousands of people every year, kill millions? -Taking away a drug that someone needs to save their life is murder through the improper use of force, just as surely as a common bludgeoning.
I guess the question really is: Is Ray a libertarian? (I don't care whether he's a member of the Party or not, just whether he's consistent in his principles...)
I'd really like to know.
However, another thought occurs to me: Ray should never answer my question. If there is a powergrab for nanotech, he might be in a position to weild the force, and if he is a libertarian/quasi-libertarian, he might be able to prevent the government from having absolute power, by infiltrating them, and helping to decentralize it.
As one simpleminded MOSH, if anyone cares what I think, I put one vote for trusting NO GOVERNMENT with nanotech, and believe that, existence of islamo-fascists remaining or not, the power should be decentralized. Ideally, the power should be decentralized to people who understand freedom in a deep libertarian way, by the creators of that technology. The initiation of force should be banned, but no voluntary action should be banned. The only justifiable force being retaliatory force.
In an era of nanotech proper, war will also be unjustified, since retaliation will be able to be incredibly specific, targeted only against the individual instigators...
I'd like to know what Ray thinks about this. Would he feel comfortable as a peacekeeping warlord? Or would he be more comfortable relegating that responsibility to the dimwits and powerwhores in government? Or would he rather exclude himself from such a decision, even though that might mean the latter?
If we don't have a laissez-faire and free government when nanotech gets here, we'll probably never have one after it gets here. (Unless everyone gets smarter, and it just happens, since people decide to compete fairly out of self-interest)
These are the deciding days for the human race, and virtually noone understands the nature of collective rule. As noted in Leonard Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels" we are drifting without a rudder, aimlessly towards complete fascism (our form of government is already fascist, but it is a weak fascism, due to widespread private gun ownership as vestigially protected by our Bill of Rights).
it would be good if rational men like Kurzweil, Kamen, etc... decided to get involved in politics and make the Libertarians win. Most of the libertarians that are currently in power really don't want to win, but it would be easy to make it happen with a few hundred K (a fraction of what they spent on presidential ballot access last time...).
At least then, as we get closer to nanotech, if we need a free market somewhere in order to SURVIVE as a species, we will not have given up the game in advance by handing the chessboard to the D&R fascists.
Just my .02. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
