Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Matrix Media Movies

Harry Potter with Guns 330

Posted by michael from the blast-a-house-elf dept.
kauff writes "Slate has recently released a somewhat-inspired article about what the Matrix was. You have to read it for yourself. Good way to hype yourself up before Reloaded on May 15th."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harry Potter with Guns More

Harry Potter with Guns

Comments Filter:

  • Harry potter reference explained (Score:5, Funny)

    by dtldl ( 644451 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:20PM (#5869660)
    "The Matrix is a sci-fi John Hughes movie, in which a misfit learns that he's actually cool. (Think Harry Potter with guns.)" How is a programmer who sleeps in front of his terminal a misfit around here?

  • full text (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:20PM (#5869663)
    The Matrix
    It's Harry Potter with guns.
    By Chris Suellentrop
    Posted Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 2:23 PM PT

    Illustration by Charlie Powell
    Why is The Matrix? The "what" has already been answered: It's an R-rated Star Wars, a sci-fi movie with philosophical pretensions that did shockingly gangbuster business at the box office. The Matrix raked in more than $170 million in the United States, became the first DVD to sell more than 1 million copies, and set the stage for the two most-anticipated sequels of 2003 (at least until The Return of the King comes out). But while The Matrix's commercial success is impressive, it's not mind-boggling. In 1999, four movies--Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, The Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2, and Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me--did better business than The Matrix, and Disney's Tarzan finished only a fistful of dollars behind. What makes The Matrix stand out from that pack is the way it combines mass appeal with a smaller, more intense cult following. No recent movie (other than films with a built-in fan base, like the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings movies) inspires the same kind of slavish, fan-boy devotion. Type the name of a contemporary movie with a similar box-office gross, like Ocean's Eleven, into Google, and you're confronted with a list of official sites and e-commerce pages hawking the movie. Type "the matrix," and you get those sites but also a flood of fan pages--Matrix as Messiah Movie, Knowthematrix.com, the requisite LEGO site, and the sine qua non of movie-geek cult status: the fan-created role-playing game.

    What explains the phenomenon? We know it's not the dialogue. Part of the explanation is simple: The mixing of the genres of science fiction and kung fu meant that the Wachowski brothers combined two great cult tastes that go great together. (On one of the featurettes on the Matrix DVD, Andy Wachowski sums up the movie by saying, "It's about robots vs. kung fu.") The movie's startling premise, atmospheric John Woo-style action, and "bullet time" effects go a long way toward explaining the movie's appeal, too. As does the fact that the movie is laden with references and allusions that reward repeated viewings, making fans who recognize them feel as if they and the filmmakers are part of an exclusive, in-the-know club. A by-no-means-complete list includes everything from Baudrillard to Christianity to Descartes to Buddhism to spaghetti westerns to Lewis Carroll to William Gibson's Neuromancer to Jackie Chan's Drunken Master.

    But none of these explanations is sufficient. The real source of the fascination with The Matrix is that, despite all appearances, the movie is not a dystopia. Rather, it's a utopia, a geek paradise. The Matrix is a sci-fi John Hughes movie, in which a misfit learns that he's actually cool. (Think Harry Potter with guns.) At the software company where Keanu Reeves works, his boss might as well be the principal castigating Judd Nelson in The Breakfast Club when he says: "You have a problem with authority, Mr. Anderson. You believe that you are special. That somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously, you are mistaken." Of course, we learn that the oppressive Figure of Authority is the one who is mistaken. But instead of going to the prom, Keanu gets to pack heat, learn kung fu, wear a black trench coat and sunglasses, and, to top it off, he gets a hot, ass-kicking girlfriend who sports fetish wear. What kind of dystopia is this? No one wants to be Winston Smith in 1984, but everyone wants to be Neo (or Trinity, or Morpheus) in The Matrix.

    As Alan Dean Foster puts it in Exploring the Matrix, an anthology of essays by science-fiction writers, Neo is "Everynerd": "His perceived world is a sham, a mistake, a carefully crafted fake, and you know, deep down, that yours is, too." But the movie has a special appeal to that subset of misfit, the computer geek. When we first see Neo, he's living alone in his cramped apartment, staying up all night on his computer. He's a programmer by day and a computer hac

    • Re:full text (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the parent should NOT have been modded down like that.. did any of you mods know that phoenix cant render that page? and some of us wouldnt be able to read it if it wasnt for the parent.

      please, pull your heads out of your arses.

  • I disagree completely. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:22PM (#5869665)
    I don't agree w/the comment that it blends "mass appeal with cult".

    This movie was good period. It had exceptional and ground breaking special effects. The story-line was great and contrary to the comment of the author the dialog was good.

    Nope, it didn't have a ready made fan base but it does now.

    I wish people would watch movies to watch movies instead of reading into them so much.
    • I think that it did have a ready fan base, actually, as the article stated. On one side, you have the Woo-ites who crave for the wire-fu and Jackie Chan kung fu goodness...on the other side, hackers/crackers who question authority and rally against the seemingly unbeatble status-quo. The article used the Breakfast Club analogy, and I thought that was insightful. Anyhow, that's just my two cents.

    • yup (was: I disagree completely) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dorfsmay ( 566262 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:39PM (#5869748) Homepage
      I agree. I personally do not care for for special effects, but I need a good story, and the Matrix was a very good story. Something very original, not your typical clever, good looking, young lawyer that beats the big bad guy. Not as predictible as the average movie either, and the "standard american set of morales" is not necessarely respected, contrary to 90% of movies coming out of Hollywood.

      I have met Christians who saw the matrix as a metaphor for God, I personally think it was a modern version of a lot of the Tibetan Budhism teachings (an no I am not a Budhist, but interrested in the different perception of realities both in eastern and western culture).

      In the movie, when the hero (Neo ?) is sitting in an armchair, and wonder if everything is fake, and the other hero asked him "what is reality ? Is it waht your senses tell it is to your brain ?" - this is a very "budhist question" (not only Tibettan, but accross the differnt form of budhism), and definitely a very valid question !!

      • Re:yup (was: I disagree completely) (Score:5, Insightful)

        by efflux ( 587195 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:57PM (#5869823)
        "what is reality ? Is it waht your senses tell it is to your brain ?"- this is a very "budhist question" (not only Tibettan, but accross the differnt form of budhism), and definitely a very valid question !!

        It probably was inspired by Plato or Descartes. It's the *Western* philosophy of rationalism.

        See here [trinity.edu]
        and
        here [m-w.com] .
        • What, the movie or the Buddhism? I've got it on pretty good authority that Buddhism was around much earlier than Descartes (can't speak to Plato, but I don't think there was a lot of cross-pollination between East and West that far back).

          I think the quiestion is fairly universal to those who have enough capacity to sit down and think about it... No reason I can't be both Eastern and Western at the same time.
      • not entirely original. Those questions have been asked by philosophers of every major civilaization. In addition, much of the inspiration for their movies came from other films (ie: Ghost in the Shell, which questions the difference between man and machine, and man's perception of reality and his memories.)
      • " Something very original, not your typical clever, good looking, young lawyer that beats the big bad guy. Not as predictible as the average movie either, and the "standard american set of morales" is not necessarely respected, contrary to 90% of movies coming out of Hollywood."

        You didn't find the Matrix to be predictable?

        "I agree. I personally do not care for for special effects, but I need a good story, and the Matrix was a very good story"

        It had an okay derivitive story. Strip out the effects, and
      • Original? Naw... Did anyone see Dark City [imdb.com] or The Thirteenth Floor [imdb.com] or Truman Show [imdb.com]? All these films (including The Matrix)came out in '98 - '99... I was beginning to think that Hollywood was trying to tell us something about our reality...
        • "I was beginning to think that Hollywood was trying to tell us something about our reality..."

          What, "We control everything you see and hear. Here, have some steak. You can't get that just anywghere..." ..?

          Sounds pretty consistent to me.

    • Re:I disagree completely. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by efflux ( 587195 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:39PM (#5869749)
      I wish people would watch movies to watch movies instead of reading into them so much.

      I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say to this, and I wonder what you are trying to say. Are you saying that movies shouldn't have anything to say and that people shouldn't look for what the movie says? Do we just sit a watch a movie mindlessly, without thinking about what it is doing?

      This is a very, very odd thing to say.

      • Re:I disagree completely. (Score:5, Funny)

        by oGMo ( 379 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @05:57PM (#5870807)
        I wish people would watch movies to watch movies instead of reading into them so much.
        I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say to this, and I wonder what you are trying to say. Are you saying that movies shouldn't have anything to say and that people shouldn't look for what the movie says? Do we just sit a watch a movie mindlessly, without thinking about what it is doing?

        I wish people would read comments to read comments without reading into them so much.

        ;-)

      • Re:I disagree completely. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by shut_up_man ( 450725 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @08:05PM (#5871457) Homepage
        It's funny... I've been running into this strange attitude a lot recently. I believe it stems from people who really dislike analysis, particularly self-analysis, because they're either not liking the answers they find, or they plain get confused by the whole analysis process.

        As well as movies, I've been told to stop analysing humour, and art in general. Apparently it should "just be funny" or "just be good art" without any reasons WHY it is. It's an idea mostly pushed by art students who like to think "i can make up any crap I want and call it art, because i want to".

        Of course, years of working with computers and solving problems logically contribute to a mindset with a need for analysis... which probably means most of Slashdot thinks more like I do, right?

    • Re:I disagree completely. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lidocaineus ( 661282 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:43PM (#5869769)
      I'll have to say that the movie was good, but the storyline wasn't too hot, and anyone who thinks the dialogue was any good should go read a book. Or better yet, watch the first Wachowski brothers movie, Bound. Now *there* was an excellent movie - tension, humor, drama, awesome cinematography and far better dialogue than The Matrix, all on a shoestring budget on a very limited set. As for watching movies to watch movies instead of reading into them, well, the directors DID want you to read into The Matrix. Did that fly over your head? The problem is, while there is something there, there's not a whole lot of it. See, the storyline was just a mishmash of practically every single piece of popular sci-fi (lit or movie) previously, with a muddy undertone of religious and philsophical musings. While highly entertaining and even groundbreaking in certain considerations, imo, I consider The Matrix to be just short of being among the best. Good scifi is all about the human condition, which The Matrix touches upon, but never really goes into much depth with. It's basically the brain equivalent of eye candy; fun, makes you think a bit, but in the end, you want something real to chew on. Examples of good scifi: Blade Runner (duh), Solaris (original Russian version), The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and anything but Stanislaw Lem or Jorge Borges.
      • I agreed with you whole-heartedly, until you mentioned blade runner. That is the single most boring sci-fi I have ever had the displeasure to watch. Even Harrison Ford said that the movie sucked. The only reason that movie was ever even remotely popluar was because it was eye candy. The plot was thin, the little "mysteries" were blindingly obvious, and the little bits of action that were thrown in were limited, sporatic, and totaly pathetic. In contrast to blade runner, the matrix is a goddly movie.

        Even wo

        • Re:I disagree completely. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rossifer ( 581396 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @06:48AM (#5873640) Journal
          Well, they're rather different stories.

          The Matrix is a straight up Campbellian hero myth including the departure, wisdom from the old woman, descent into the underworld, return from the underworld, trial, success, bring an important power/artifact back to whoever. Good stuff and usually fun for most audiences (since the Campbellian hero myth is really the story of any successful human life, once enough of the unpleasant details are buffed out).

          Blade Runner is a altogether different story. It's a cautionary tale about technology outstripping ethics and some of the real risks when we limit ourselves by what is possible instead of what is right.

          The central conflict is an examination of the definition of humanity from an alien perspective (the replicants). At what point does the artificial become natural? Where is the line in the sand where we say, "This is human. That is not." What if they look the same but can't be mature enough to safely coexist because they didn't have a childhood? What if they look the same and remember a childhood? This exploration is set in a tragic context where the replicants could exist, a society in decay, struggling with the aftermath of environmental collapse, presumably from a history of tech/ethical decisions gone wrong (almost no natural animals, remember).

          Then there are some closely related questions even more relevant to our lives today: do things have to be human to have rights? Is the ability to feel pain and fear enough to acquire legal protection? The tragedy of mortality, "All those memories lost; like tears in rain." Tyrell, as the technology wielder (creator), must face the pleadings of his imperfect creation and then faces destruction for those imperfections. The obvious issue of slavery, an assertion that is only credible once it is accepted that the replicants are in fact, human. Which ought to be an sobering reminder of the rule that a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person for apportioning representatives just 200 years ago here in the US...

          I can completely understand why many people don't like Blade Runner. The questions it raises are intentionally unsettling dilemmas. It's much easier to skim over the depth and see it as a slow moving cop flick with a flaky soundtrack. But if you should choose to look below the surface, there's a world of philosophical exploration going on.

          In my personal opinion, Blade Runner is the best movie I've ever seen. Though Fight Club just recently (two years ago) entered the running as a really strong second place... And who cares what Harrison Ford thinks. He's an actor and a damned good one but IMO acting skills rarely translate into anything else of value. Let's be serious here: Are you really expecting the man dating Calista Flockhart to be a shining exemplar of good taste and philosophical insight?

          Regards,
          Ross
      • I will burn some karma... After watching xmen2 (excellent movie)... and the trailers of matrix reloaded on the same day, i dont see how matrix reloaded would live up the impressive amount of expectation of the fan base. The story seems weak, the effects doesnt look groundbreaking... ok i will see it when is out, but i dont expect to be the mother-of-all-sci-movies...
      • watch the first Wachowski brothers movie, Bound. Now *there* was an excellent movie - tension, humor, drama, awesome cinematography and far better dialogue than The Matrix
        If you really want /. readers to watch this, you forgot to mention lesbian sex scenes.
    • I agree with your disagreement. I tend to agree with some critics that some of Keanu's Neo dialogue was bad -- although I don't think it comes down to 'woah', but Fishburne and Weaving turned in great performances which were -- like the movie -- every so slightly over the top, and brilliant in their own way. Moss was also a solid performer.

      I don't know anyone who didn't like the matrix. My mother, in 50s, rarely goes to the movies for anything, generally dislikes computers, and yet she is looking forward t
    • It had exceptional and ground breaking special effects
      Yes, the Matrix was the first movie to use multi-cameras (motion and still) to create bullet-time effects, which was truly a revolutionary technique that other movies/games took on as well (Swordfish, Max Payne, Conan O'Brian). I have to agree with you completely there.

    • Free thought (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pkunzipper ( 652520 )
      What I most admire about this movie is that it served as a proponent of free thinking. For the past few years now, 90% of movies leaving Tinseltown are ridiculous, dum-minded farces, (even the action flix and the dramas) filled with product placement. Seeing movies today is as good an experience as cleaning your toilet. The matrix on the other hand, left its audience divided. Some just scuffed it off like an of the wall movie beucase they didn't understand anything that happended in it (except for the l
    • Actually, I have to disagree with just about everything you said.

      1. With the advent of stars like Jackie Chan and Chow Yun-Fat and Jet Li into popular American media, the Hong-Kong style martial arts movies are as popular as ever.

      2. A story targeted towards computer geeks, sf fans, and people who appreciate state-of-the-art sfx (how fast that's changed) would have a certain proportion of the potential audience sewn up.

      The movie was good, but... the dialog sucked. Keanu Reeve is a pretty awful actor,

  • Hehe (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peterus7 ( 607982 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:24PM (#5869676) Homepage Journal
    Think Harry Potter with guns.

    Oy Malfoy!

    What is it, Potter?

    BLAM.

    No, but really, does anyone see the resembelance in the most recent matrix trailer [warnerbros.com] at the end where he flies past the castle and hogwarts/quiddich?

    Neo: I don't need broomsticks.

  • So..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:27PM (#5869692)

    Does this mean that MPAA boycatt ends on May 15th???

    • yes, and the female cat begins. j/k

      I'm not sure whether the parent post is funny, insightful, or redundant. Hell, why not all three...

      OR, the boycott just begins that day. All we have to wait to do is for someone to sneak a camera into the movie, then go to sharereactor.com and look at the recent releases. Wouldn't it be funny if opening weekend didn't turn a huge profit, and they blame pirates.

    • Re:So..... (Score:3, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "Does this mean that MPAA boycatt ends on May 15th???"

      Heh. Don't worry, when the next cool scifi-movie is beaten by a romantic comedy starring Jennifer Lopez, the Bocyott will be back on.

  • Huh (Score:5, Funny)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:29PM (#5869702) Homepage Journal
    Slate has recently released a somewhat-inspired article about what the Matrix was. You have to read it for yourself.

    Have things gotten so bad that people have to be explicitly directed to read the article??

  • dystopic utopia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deathcloset ( 626704 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:29PM (#5869705) Journal
    Good point made about this dark future. While on the surface the matrix is a prison, it is a prison in which you can fly, dodge bullets and jump into the chests of your enemies (without all the trouble that comes with your run of the mill prison made psychedelics).
    all I want to know is, if there are hovering robots and a computer reality, is there no space capability? I mean, why don't the machines just purge the faulty human batteries and move into space? plenty of solar power, plenty of room. Besides, regardless of the number of humans you have powering your MMOR (Massive Multiplayer Online Reality) I cannot help but speculate that a nuclear reactor has a great deal more potential for raw power than small to mid-sized mammals...But what kind of a movie is that right?

    • Re:dystopic utopia (Score:4, Informative)

      by spencerogden ( 49254 ) <spencer@spencerogden.com> on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:41PM (#5869760) Homepage
      The clever explanation I heard for the 'human battteries' was this. Morpheus is wrong. Of course the ower generated by a human isn't meaningful compared to what they consume. But they mention the use of Fusion. The explanation is that fusion power is a very tricky process to regulate, to the humans are used as a massive parallel computer to control the real power plant. Any energy they produce is just icing.

      Now, if the robots have enough computer power to simulate reality for millions of humans, you might think they have enough computing power to control the power plant, but oh well, I thought it was a clever excuse for a pretty glaring hole in the movie.

      • Re:dystopic utopia (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Wingnut64 ( 446382 )
        Now, if the robots have enough computer power to simulate reality for millions of humans, you might think they have enough computing power to control the power plant, but oh well, I thought it was a clever excuse for a pretty glaring hole in the movie.

        Unless reality is simulated client-side in human brains, which would explain how Neo can create his own rules.

        • Re:dystopic utopia (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You know, that's what bugs me the whole time about the movie (which I've seen multiple times -- only topped by TESB)... obviously Neo can manipulate his reality because he's "gifted" (he's found a link to the matrix, he can tap into some control function, whatever, he can just do it). Why can't the agents do the same? They are part of the entity controlling the matrix, so they shouldn't be constrained by the rules created for the humans. But what you say is very interesting. What if the entity driving th

          • Re:dystopic utopia (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @05:39PM (#5870678) Homepage Journal
            But, apparently they can. They can take over bodies of humans in the matrix, they can make Neo's mouth disappear, they can create things like the "bug", which clearly can't exist in the "real world".

            If you think too hard about what the agents can and cannot do, you will only get a headache. The only conclusion you can draw is that they have somewhat above normal control of "reality", which just got trumped by Neo. I guess the only solution will be to completely outnumber him.... ;-)

      • But they mention the use of Fusion. The explanation is that fusion power is a very tricky process to regulate, to the humans are used as a massive parallel computer to control the real power plant.

        As long as we're in futuristic speculation mode, I suppose we can speculate that a fusion reactor would be difficult to control. Somehow I doubt it will be so tricky to regulate; the tricky part is initially figuring out how to build machinery to take advantage of some physical process. Once you get the basic

    • Re:dystopic utopia (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gauchito ( 657370 )
      I always thought that it would have been a better to line to say that they were using humans for processing power (a beowulf cluster of billions of humans brains). They could have even made a comment about how most humans only use, what like 10% of the brain, because the other 90% was taken by the machines.

  • Utter crap (Score:2, Interesting)

    by spectral ( 158121 )
    The article was utter crap. Ok, yeah, it had some good points (like why the hell would you want to leave the Matrix? Even if you don't like your 9-5, it's better than wakign up atrophied, realizing you got plugs and wires up the wazoo (or at least, the back of your neck. Whether the robots anal probed everyone is, I assume, left to the imagination), and eating slop every day while trying to run from robots.)

    Yes, maybe to some people it was because Neo was cool and their dream person, or Trinity, or Morp

    • Re:Utter crap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @04:17PM (#5870236) Journal
      Even if you don't like your 9-5, it's better than wakign up atrophied, realizing you got plugs and wires up the wazoo (or at least, the back of your neck.

      On an individual level, maybe not.

      But the humans in the Matrix have no future. Extrapolating a little, it looks like the world is being held artificially to 1990's standards. In the real 1990's and beyond, technology is advance, society is moving along, and there's real hope that your kids will have a better life then you, which has driven more progress then you might think. In the Matrix, nothing; no progress, no future. No space colonization. Always at the mercy of your AI overlords.

      On the individual level you might be able to live with that. Eventually, if the machines allowed mating to occur as it does within the Matrix (i.e., sex in the Matrix results in the machines moving the correct semen to the right womb, allowing natural selection forces to continue), humanity might have the spunk bred out of it. But on the racial level, the situation is intolerable.

      In fact a lot of 1950's science fiction built on a very similar theme; if I had time I think I could pull three examples from my personal collection. I believe on of them was called "The Machine", which was a massive computing machine that had served several races into complete atrophy, then moved on to another star to do it again to another race. Finally, with humanity, it realizes it is doing more harm then good and packs up and leaves in the most disruptive way possible; a weakness not of The Machine's imagination, but of the author's, IMHO. Surely it would be better to at least re-educate the race to the level it had before The Machine came? But I digress.

      Consider this: Suppose the humans lose, and the Matrix remains as is. What happens to humanity in 200 years? Two thousand? Two million? There's no easy answer to that question, there's no easy answer for us in the real world, either. But should it be in Humanity's control, not the AI's? Failure probably means the extinction of the human race, sooner or later.
  • "What makes The Matrix stand out from that pack is the way it combines mass appeal with a smaller, more intense cult following." But there was no cult following before the matrix.... Now there is, although it's not so small, and I think it has defined a mass appeal of it's very own.

  • Great Page (Score:2, Informative)

    by rich3929 ( 138593 )
    This page:

    http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/c/t/ctm132/mat ri x/101.htm

    was linked in the article... pretty funny stuff inside.

  • Whats the article title got to do with anything... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PinkoHeretic ( 665616 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:33PM (#5869725)
    ...Harry Potter with guns? Because Harry Potter has a lot of eastern philosophy, robots, and slow-mo kung-fu? The article does end with an important point, that Man and Machines can live in harmony and that the Matrix movies do or at least will support that. The best of the Animatrix short movies, "The Second Renaissance," shows the humans as the bad guys who started the Man vs. Machine war with their intolerance and jealousy. Hopefully in Reloaded and Revolutions Mankind will be freed, but some sort of "Good Guy Machines" will appear to give a better ending then a "us vs. them" war could ever provide.

  • Is this really that supprising? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:35PM (#5869730)
    About 2 months ago a very anti-technology professor of mine pointed out that the reason the matrix is popular is because it tells nerds what they want to hear, that they can still be cool and powerful even if where they are right now is a small room, by themselves, spending 14 hours a day stairing at a computer screen.
    • What is to stop nerds from becomming cool and powerful? If that is what you wanted, you could certainly accomplish that goal... Thing is, most nerds don't care that much.

      How many movies have there been where normal guys save the entire world??? A shitload! What is so different about them? Very often those guys are nerds in some way (usually not computer geeks).

      It seems that this professor of yours has a serious anti-nerd slant, and just read his own bias into the movie.
    • Interesting.

      For the record, I don't see what's so great about this movie myself. I also don't see "groundbreaking special effects" as something that adds a whole lot to a good movie.

      How antitechnology was this prof? Against what sort of technology? Does this person ride a horse & buggy, crank up their Model T, do s/he accept self-adjusting carburation? What about electronic fuel injection? I suppose a modern diesel bus doesn't need to have that much technology yet.

      Type up books on a mechanical
    • I have two words for your professor.

      Linus. Torvalds.

      In essence, Linus is a computer nerd that spent a whole bunch of time in front of his computer, and is now considered a very powerful person indeed. The software project he started is now turning whole economies upside-down. If that's not power, what is?

      Now, it's important to note that Linus is a relatively unique story, but it does go to demonstrate that with enough effort and critical thinking (good timing helps, too), yes, one person can start to change the world - that's power for you.
      • I'd say a stronger example would be Bill Gates. Whilst many people here intensely dislike the guy he did very much fit into the nerd stereotype when he was at college, and now he personally wields a hell of a lot of power.
        • Very true - he certainly holds more power than Torvalds. I'm not sure he's as good an example, though, since it wasn't when he was at his computer that he was becoming powerful. Gates was a mediocre coder - it's his business dealings that made him who he is.

    • Get a hold of yourself (Score:2, Insightful)

      by J23SE ( 107309 )
      The Matrix is is popular not because of nerds but because of its great quality and entertainment value as a movie. Quite simply, there aren't even enough "nerds" to justify the massive figures at the box office and the hordes of fans that will swarm to the theaters next week. Case in point: 15 of my closest friends on my dorm floor have never even heard of Linux (*gasp*, in some cases they don't even know "operating system"), yet we're all going to see the Matrix on opening day, because of how much we loved
    • or maybe just because it was a FUN movie to watch. After all, we geeks can't swing the popularity polls of movies that much. I remember when it first came out, I liked it for 2 reasons really, violence and cool special effects. that's the secret to this movie, we have the lobby scene, the perfect blend of slow motion and hong-kong like fighting, fused with guns galore, and finished with a really kick-ass fire. And the whole bullet time thing didn't hurt.

    • Re:Is this really that supprising? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @03:48PM (#5870077)
      Personally, what I got out of the movie is that even Ted "Theodore" Logan can use a computer.

  • Product Placement? Movie tie-ins? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:35PM (#5869732) Journal
    Am I the only one sick of product placement and movie tie-ins? I didn't mind too much, since they were all movies I wouldn't like anyhow, but the serious movies such as castaway are becomming multi-hour-long commercials that you have to pay $10 to watch...

    I wouldn't think Matrix would stoop that low, except for the current commercial tie-ins, that are making me suspicious.

    I really think the MPAA should have a rating to indicate if there is product placement, and how extensive it is...

    I would hate to see a good movie series ruined so the studio can make a little bit more money... *cough* *cough* *star wars*
    • Amen. I don't see how you can have a sequel when the hero learns at the end of the first movie that he's invincible, omnipotent, etc. What can you possibly have thrown at the hero that could stop him? Basically, you have to throw away the premise with which you ended the first film in order to crank out a few more money makers.

      of course, the matrix is already so over-hyped it's amazing. any "philosophy" in that film was abandoned half-way through for a big blow 'em up, shoot out (that's not to say i di
      • When did they claim he was invincible? They claimed he was "the one" who would lead humans to overthrow their oppression, and clearly he was endowed with incredible power (or more acurately, self-control). Never do they say he cannot be hurt... perhaps he saves his people by dying for them... it's a familiar theme you know :)

        Doug

  • You know what burns my butt? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:36PM (#5869739)
    The fact that Keanu Reeves might actually go down in history as a great actor. We all know that he is NOT, but many years from now, people will only look at the success of his movies and actually claim that he CAN act.

  • Casting for The Matrix... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JackMonkey ( 631985 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:36PM (#5869740)
    Harry Potter with Guns

    Ok, so obviously Harry would be Neo and Hermoine would be Trinity, but who would be Morpheus?

    My vote's for Dumbledore. Just imagine him in a black trenchcoat with some slick shades. :-p

  • Thanks from the motion picture industry (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:37PM (#5869742)
    MPAA exec #1: We need another $2,000,000 to buy this senator his dream home.. which will get us our "dream legislation".. I was thinking it would be funny and ironic if those pirates and thieves on Slush Dot paid for it.

    exec #2: You mean Slash Dat. Shall I have my well-paid contacts at the Slash post another pointless article on the Matrix to get them interested? Then they will flock to the movie and we will laugh uproariously as we use their own money against them.

    exec #1: Actually, it's Slosh Dot, now that I think about it. Whatever the case, that's a great idea. They are all a bunch of hackers and pirates, so why not let them pay for the law that hangs them!

    exec #2: BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! MWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

    exec #1: Still have that bad cough?

    exec #2: Yes, whenever I cough it sounds like an evil laugh or something.

    exec #1: Weird.

  • Pencil-pusher Bull@$#% story... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:46PM (#5869785) Journal
    Article, refering to the cult following:
    The mixing of the genres of science fiction and kung fu meant that the Wachowski brothers combined two great cult tastes that go great together.

    Man, do these types ever give up? It's like the business world is convinced that everything is about trends, ratings, etc.

    Here's a thought... Did it ever cross anyone's minds that the Matrix might just be a dammed good movie? One that is unique and creative?

    If you listen to these guys, you could take the same elements, and make movie that would be just as successful. If that were true, Star Wars 1 & 2 would have been just as good as 4, 5 & 6... If that were true, the last two seasons of the Simpsons would have been just as good as the rest, but they certainly aren't (it's like they fired the writing staff and hired guys that have only heard about the show 2nd hand).

  • haha (Score:5, Informative)

    by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Saturday May 03, 2003 @02:52PM (#5869806) Homepage
    For those of you who didn't read the article, Read this [psu.edu]! it is all of Neo's dialogue, all 3 pages of it. I never realized it before, but most of his lines are questions. and the only really long line is his ending narration.
    • "I know Kung Fu." I laughed so hard when I saw that scene that I missed the next 15 minutes wiping the tears from my eyes. Possibly the dumbest line in the history of film. Well, maybe it's a tie with "I burned my modem. We all did." from Alien IV (about as laughable as Matrix but without good F/X).

    • Re:haha (Score:2, Funny)

      by Spit ( 23158 )
      Read the alternative [air0day.com] script, it's not too far away.
    • Dude. [air0day.com]

      Every rose has its thorn...

  • Mr. Anderson. (Score:5, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @03:02PM (#5869846)
    One of these movies... has a future, and one of them does not. Now, I'm going to be as... forthcoming, with you as I can be, Mr. Anderson. You're here because, we need your help. We know that you've acquired the highest karma rating on a certain website, one that calls itself Slashdot. Whatever you think you know about this site is irrelevant, it is considered by many corporate executives to be the most dangerous site on the web. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start, and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing known Microsoft bashers to justice.
    • "We know that you've acquired the highest karma rating on a certain website, one that calls itself Slashdot"

      And what is that karma?

      Karma Excellent! (Mostly due to WYLD STALLYNS!)

  • And for this they interviewed Captain Cyborg [theregister.co.uk]?

    Everybody duck, someone's credibility is going flying overhead and out the window...

  • The psychology of mythology - what makes a story? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @03:33PM (#5870001) Homepage Journal
    George Lucas is a bright guy. He worled with noted mythologist Joseph Campbell [jcf.org] in designing the story line for the star wars saga, such that it is most compelling to the largest possible audience. The late Joseph Campbell theorised that there are identifiable story elements and common threads in all mythology that makes it so universally compelling and has allowed some stories to live on literally for thousands of years.

    George Lucas sought to harness these concepts and taylor a mythology for the modern era, and with the help of Joseph Campbell, he succeeded. I recall hearing comments from many of my colligues that Harry Potter is a lot like Star Wars (back when the first one came out) and my imediate reaction was to examine the common threads where I found an almost identical human struggle. A lost chile finds his way in the world with the guidance of an elder who then (eventually) leaves the student to his own devices, to overcome a great evil, not only to save the world but to save some one or something far more personal to him. This is only a cursory summary of the similarities which were outlined in the article but can be examined more closely after a careful reading of some of Campbell's works on mythology. I recommend the Masks of God or the Mythic Dimention.

    IN the case of the Matrix, I believe the brothers who's name I won't attemt to spell, simply stumbled upon this formula. Certainly there are similarities and this is what makes it such a compelling story, but as far as I know, they didn't approach the writing of the story as methodically, or in such a calculating way as did George Lucas or the author of the Harry Potter books.

    --CTH

    • Re:The psychology of mythology - what makes a stor (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @04:10PM (#5870202)
      > George Lucas is a bright guy. He worled with noted mythologist Joseph Campbell [jcf.org] in designing the story line for the star wars saga, such that it is most compelling to the largest possible audience.

      You know, I used to think George was greatness itself because of the first three SW movies, but now, after seeing the previous two, I think he just got lucky. I don't think he _really_ understands why the first three movies were so good, because if he did, I don't see how in the world the previous two could have been as bad as they were.

      And he's certainly not much of an director. Hayden Christiansen _can_ act, but he's one of those iffy actors who requires a good director to get a good performance. Kinda like George Clooney. Put someone like Soderbergh at the helm, and even George Clooney can be a good actor.

      Unfortunately, the latest SW films have mediocre writing AND mediocre directing. Great special effects, sure, but the original SW films weren't great because of special effects. The only saving grace out of either of the last two has been the fight scenes! That's pathetic.

      *sigh*
    • IN the case of the Matrix, I believe the brothers who's name I won't attemt to spell, simply stumbled upon this formula. Certainly there are similarities and this is what makes it such a compelling story, but as far as I know, they didn't approach the writing of the story as methodically, or in such a calculating way as did George Lucas or the author of the Harry Potter books.

      I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think Neo takes the classic hero journey. Just off the top of my head:

      First, he gets the "ca

  • Another pop culture expert... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benzapp ( 464105 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @03:49PM (#5870080)
    A grow tired of these astoundingly ignorant reviews of the matrix. Is it entirely possible that some people, especially hipster professional pop culture critics, are so ignorant of life and philosophy they truly have no idea what the fuck they are talking about?

    The matrix is a great movie beacuse it is the first and only movie to really focus on the use of illusion as a tool of social control. From Plato and the allegory of the cave to Nietzsche and is exploration of slave morality, this has been a dominant theme amongst the greatest philosophers.

    This movie did well because the people know in their hearts they are not free. They are enslaved by school, learning nothing but conformity and submission, then they work at a company contributing nothing of substance, wasting their lives away until its time to retire.

    People know that their lives are impotent, that their hopes and dreams are completely disconnected from the reality in which they live.

    This is the story of the 20th century, of people lost without the fiction of religion imposed on their minds, with governments scrambling to impose all sorts of substitutes to give life meaning to a nihilistic population, as well as find new ways to raise a worker class now that physical slavery no longer exists.

    The entire social structure of the modern world is a fiction, just as the matrix is a fiction. Both serve the same purpose: to enslave the mind of free men.

    Sadly, pop culture experts never read philosophy they look at everything as a fashion, a fad. "The Matrix is a mixture of kung-fu and sci-fi". The Matrix is no more "about" those things than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is about sex or Plato's Republic is about unemployed Greek guys dressed in Togas. There is a difference between the medium and the message, and this review gets it all wrong.

    The Matrix simply uses pop culture theatrical tools as a means to an end, to open the eyes of a people doomed to a life of slavery. It is a noble effort, and one that should be applauded.

    Nothing will blow your mind like reading Nietzsche however especially Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy for the Future [amazon.com].

    There is also a whole book out discussing the philosophy of the matrix, but IMHO it is weak.

    • Re:Another pop culture expert... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @04:01PM (#5870143)
      The matrix is a great movie beacuse it is the first and only movie to really focus on the use of illusion as a tool of social control.


      Oh, come off it. It's a great movie because the fight scenes are bitchin' and Carrie-Anne Moss in her tight black jumpsuit is HOT.
    • And it's because people's own minds make them feel enslaved (since they are not literally), it is their own minds that can release them. Nietzsche was such a downer, but I admit I havent read enough of him to know if he actually proposed any *solutions* on how one should change one's world-view to escape this mind-slavery. One can escape mediocrity if one so chooses. I choo-choo-choose freedom [ ;-) ]

    • All Robots (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Euphonious Coward ( 189818 )
      Every SF story about machines taking over the world is really an allegory about takeovers by the constructs we really have -- governments, religions, lately corporations -- exercising power beyond anyone's ability to restrain them. Without that connection, the story would hold no interest.

      The Matrix is no exception. The notion of humans as "power sources" makes perfect sense, then: the corporations still need votes to maintain their hold, in the US and Europe. Now that they own all the major news source

  • Best thing about the matrix (Score:5, Funny)

    by OpCode42 ( 253084 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @04:11PM (#5870209) Homepage
    The great thing about it was that it appealed on so many levels. The following exchange shows what I mean...

    Poster A : See, Neo is forced to question the very fabric of existance. He questions everything that we take for granted and reveals that the truth is vastly different to what we perceive to be true. Its an existential quandry, are we just figments of someone's imagination? How do we know that what we perceive to be "real" is what is actually reality?

    Poster B : I like the bit where he fights an agent.

  • Philosophy and Mythology are always appealing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by philipx ( 521085 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @04:29PM (#5870312) Homepage
    I think that in terms of movies, there are only a couple that have generated as much attention and fandom and Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter have generated (LOTR & HP are also bestsellers in books as well). So what do they have in common?
    I would dare to angry anybody and say Star Wars is Lord of the Rings a couple of millennia into the future. Same for The Matrix being Harry Potter. But in terms of movies, I think the reverse is equally true. I think LOTR has to be thankful to Star Wars for part of its success, the same way Harry Potter has to be thankful to The Matrix opening the gates to the Magic Hero trail.
    However, ancient and future heroes, battle of good and evil, greek, roman, chinese mythology have been part of a zillion good movies. I mean, good vs evil is THE subject of all modern movies. So why doesn't Sixth Sense, Toy Story and Austin Powers generate such an impressive fandom?
    Let me wobble over a couple of reasons I think stand behind such a tremendous success as these four movies have inspired:
    • Tickle the imagination. I mean, this is a no-brainer. See the success of the James Bond series. However, the battles and forces the heroes have to face in any of these movies are exceedingly large and victory seems to be against all odds. Death Star, Mordor, The Matrix and Valdemort are perpetuous threatening presences no one else can really win in a battle agains them.
    • Bildungsroman and neverending battles. Frodo and Aragorn, Neo, Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker are red-threads through the entire story, characters that don't stall, but rather learn and evolve in a continuous manner, all of them led by a human yet higher, more esoteric force: Gandalf, Morpheus/Oracle, Dumbledore and Obi-Wan/Yoda. That's the bildungsroman part. In the never ending battle, I'd like you to recall that in any of these movies, in any of the parts, evil is defeated, but not extincted. Now, obviously some could argue that this is part of the Hollywood plot to allow more income from sequels :). But honestly now, how many times have you fixed something so that it will never go bad again in any condition?!. Evil is a character, and people can identify it. If Batman keeps changing enemies and Double-Oh-Seven keeps blowing them up, the bad guys are no longer an identifiable part, one that the viewers can relate to and can create their own mental plots/dreams about destroying it in wars of their own. Evil never dies, right? Make a good juicy character out of it!
    • Subtle mythology - OK, Harry Potter and LOTR have mythology written all over them (Greek and Celtic/Norse), but what about Star Wars and The Matrix? Matrix is quite easy, the mythology is mostly Christian (devil sending its messengers), although some aspects of Greek mythology is present (think Hydra). Star Wars is not as easy; being similary to LOTR, one could argue about its Celtic roots, but I think it's the aliens in SW that make us think of fabulous creatures, and if there is anything in the old books greater number than heroes, that is the fantastic creatures, ranging from tiny and funny to large and kind, from little and wicked to big and evil. All of us, as kids, had some exposure to mythology, and I think that is a strong identifiable emblem in a movie. You may not be able to put the finger on it and tell exactly what it is, but at least it spurs a shadow of deja-vu in your mind and that is enough to make you feel comfortable with the characters and the whole plot.
    • Philosophy. I've left philosophy at the end, because that is the most difficult and esoteric part. Anyone who read Tao Teh Ching has found The Matrix to be an living illustration of it. While I'm not going to mull through what is philosophical in each of the movies, I think adding this touch to a movie gives it an extra kick, and makes possible for one to argue that it really has depth, that it really goes into exploring those dark corners of the human mind. We all love to imagine a

  • Low Expectations (Score:3, Insightful)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @05:02PM (#5870478)
    The real reason Matrix is great is because virtually all other sci-fi movies have sucked. Maybe 1 out of 10 is even watchable. Between canned storylines, making movies about special effects and Hollywood endings... it's all too sad to contemplate.

    I've read a handful of awesome sci-fi books in my my life (out of thousands read) and I can truthfully say it would be sad to see them turned into a movies. Ender's Game with a happy ending? Could liberal Hollywood really get the point of "Atlas Shrugged" across? Expectations are already so low that even I compliment the latest rendition of LOTR. At least they didn't completerly bungle it. Battlefield Earth anyone?

  • How come no one remembers Dark City (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jesuscash ( 668623 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @07:41PM (#5871344)
    I think Dark City is all of what the Matrix SHOULD have been...

    The emphasis on guns was way too heavy. While I don't believe in the direct connection of gun heavy movies to gun play in real life, this movie does put an interesting spin in the whole argument. Here's these people that can do so much with their mind, just because they believe... Yet they still use guns guns guns. Dark City showed one man take on aliens that enslaved humans for so long and he won, becoming god-like in the aftermath. I totally see this as the path the Matrix series goes. If the gun play goes down in the next two movies, it may redeem itself in my eyes.

  • Isn't the Matrix about Christianity? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StephenLegge ( 558177 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @08:04PM (#5871453)
    I only saw the Matrix once when it came out on DVD, but I always thought it was sci-fi metaphor for Christianity.

    Anderson (which means "Son of Man") is the messiah/Christ who is going to save humanity from the illusion that life on earth is all there is.

    In the Matrix (just as in Chrsitianity's teachings) there are good angels and bad angels in our world who are in a constant battle for our everlasting lives.

    Some guy came to Keanu's apartment early on and said something like "you're my savior, man"; and later Neo was resurrected by "Trinity" (Father/Son/HolySpirit), reinforcing Neo as the Christ character.

    There are plenty of other references like the name of the ship Nebecanezzer (sp) who was the king in the book of Daniel who wanted his dreams interpreted. The traiter's name was "Cipher" (ie. Lucifer). And there's probably a lot more that I have since forgotten.

    The most poignent moment in the film for me was when Fishbourne was tied to the chair and the "bad angel" was saying something about how he hates people, that he hates their smell -- and he equates them to a virus. To me, this sounded like something a "fallen angel" or Satan would say to a real person in the same situation.

    Anyway, just one guy's opinion. I spotted references to some web sites in the article, "Messiah in Matrix" and knowthematrix.com -- maybe I'll check them out.

    Stephen Legge

  • despite, not because (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kisrael ( 134664 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @08:56PM (#5871703) Homepage
    I always thought we liked it depite Keeanu, not because of.

    Seriously, I don't think his appeal is that in the Matrix he was a geek who broke into systems, it's more that he's an everyman who learns there's more behind the scenes, and he learns to master that.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close