Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion 1362
pajor writes "BBC News is reporting that that The Matrix Reloaded has been banned in Egypt. The country's censorship board cited violence which might 'harm social peace', but also said the 'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'. A statement said: 'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'"
Perhaps the censor can explain... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... (Score:5, Insightful)
The architect says that this is the 6th incarnation of the one [confirming evidence, The guy who likes to curse in french and makes really good desserts said he "survived his predicessors"].
The reason that the one exists is because of a 'flaw' in a basic equation of the matrix. Earlier attempts at Matrices (how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?) failed because the brains would reject the programming. A solution was found that gave the people a 'choice' to accept the program or not, at a subconcious level. Those that rejected it ended up in Zion.
The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One. Because it is a forseen eventuality, the machines believe that they can control it. Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.
Now, the architect says that the One is supposed to then distribute the code he carries back into the prime program. I suppose to 'rebalance' the equation, but we didn't get there yet. I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.. in order to get something else done. Probably after the destruction of Zion, he will have to pick the people to repopulate Zion, otherwise the unbalancedness will destroy the matrix.
And that's about it to explain the architect scene. Again, he lays it out fairly plain. Now to mess with your heads a little
Remember afterwards when they were back in the ship and he was talking to Morpheus about what happened, and why the war wasn't over. Neo said the following: "It doesn't matter. I believed him." To me, that line just sounded slightly out of character. And it probably was supposed to.
Think back to when Neo was talking to the Oracle. When he asked how he could believe her, she replied: "You can't. You have to make up your own damn mind." I think that a good portion of movie 3 is going to revolve around that.
more spoilers (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course his car-flipping fireball scene means that he is willing to break a few eggs to make an omlett.
you know, one person who does hate all humanity, the matrix and all machines is Smith. What would happen if he infected everybody in the matrix, and then decided to commit mass suicide?
All the machines would be starved back to a "leve of existence we are prepared to accept" which must surely suck, and the humans would be left with however many people are alive in zion after the sentinels are through with them.
Smith hasn't happened before (Smith 1:"Everything is exactly like last time..." Smith 2: "Not exactly...") and it would be a typical W bros thing to do to have neo fight smith on behalf of the machines.
Poor Smith. He's the only new form of life on the planet in 2100 years. You'd think that he'd deserve some time in the sun.
Speaking of which, why haven't the machines used their technology to construct some kind of space elevator to a geosynchronous solar satellite thing yet? Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke thought that that would be a great way to get free power, and it's certainly smarter than their current plan of
1) liquifying the massive amount of human flesh we saw in The Second Renaisannce into human goo.
2) resurrect just a small portion of humans to efficiently convert the goo into bioelectricity and heat
3) get all stroppy when some of the people decide that being fed their dead ancestors intraveniously sucks and that they want to wake up.
I mean, c'mon machines! fossil fuels and hubris sent humans to the stone age at least twice! don't make the same mistake of thinking that there'll always be more oil/human goo twice!
Re:more spoilers (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one of those massive plot holes that you have to overlook if you want to enjoy the movie. Really, you have to go even further back and ask how the earth's leaders thought that scorching the sky (and thereby d
Re:more spoilers (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless, the machines only need a relatively small amount of people to power the matrix, and so far they've not run out o
Re:more spoilers (Score:4, Funny)
For all we know, the entire "human race as a battery" paradigm is something invented by the machines and fed to the those who escape "the matrix" (into another matrix) to help convince them of their plight (and to keep them from wondering if they are truly out of the matrix).
Re:more spoilers (Score:5, Interesting)
2) resurrect just a small portion of humans to efficiently convert the goo into bioelectricity and heat
It was my understanding that the Wachowski bros. had originally conceived of humans being used as a massive parallel-processing system, but that the notion was lost on the studio execs and/or the execs thought that people wouldn't be able to understand that concept. This, of course, would fit in with the need for the Matrix to exist for brain activity - if people were only needed for the power-producing capabilities (which has already been beaten to death as impractical/impossible, lossy system, etc.), then it would make more sense to have them cerebrally brain-dead. A bit of twisting and stupidity later, and the parallel-processing was ditched for the power-plant, with the Wachowskis, I'm sure, hoping no one would notice/care.
Re:more spoilers (Score:4, Interesting)
The matrix was originally an attempt by the machines to create a new garden of eden for the humans, but humans kept on eating the forbidden fruit of choice, and waking up. The current matrix is a shitty place to live but you do have free will.
The "coppertop" generators are obvious bullshit, as has been pointed out by this post's aunts&uncles. I can add to that the "Cow argument". Given the choice of enslaving docile, non-kung-fu-knowing cows, and rebellious, intelligent humans, both of which produce about the same body heat per food ingested, which do you enslave if you're interested in a stable slave population? Cows. But maybe the cows are all extinct? Well even some random stomach bacteria do a pretty good goo->heat conversion, and every human carries a lot of those, and they don't really need humans to thrive.
I think that in movie 3 we'll find out that the "real world" above the matrix is also simulated. The characters will be like "oh my god", then a smug villian will be like "what? you bought that `coppertop` thing? That was a dead giveaway, you fools".
Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up.
The impression I got was that this was the first time that the One had been in love, hence the reason why he didnt take either of the choices presented to him, and he made his own path.....
Close...but just a little wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
If Neo chose the door to HIS right (the left of the screen from the Architects perspective) then Zion would fall, the Matrix would RESET and NEO could choose 23 people (17 female and 6 male) to join him in making the new ZION and start the whole damn thing over again (the seventh Matrix/Zion).
If Neo chose the door to HIS left (the right side of the screen from the Architects perspective), then he c
Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... (Score:3, Informative)
how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?
Proper names take a regular plural. Thus when talking of mathematics, it is one matrix, many matrices. When talking of movie-reality-constructs, one Matrix, many Matrixes. That's the English language for you.
in relation to Animatix (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** (Score:5, Interesting)
Your observation they are still inside the Matrix is correct, backed up by several other events in the movie. Some of them are really subtle and I cannot recall. One is not so subtle and quite memorable:
The spoon bender in the first movie insisted "there is no spoon". Why is there no spoon? Because they are in the Matrix. The spoon becomes a symbol at this point for what does not exist as a result of where they are. The boy gives Neo another spoon as he's leaving Zion, but he does not change his message. He simply gives him the spoon. The message is unchanged: "there is no spoon", ergo, you're still inside the Matrix.
I think most people will agree, given that and the Sentinal scene in the end where Neo loses consciousness, that people in Zion are still inside the Matrix. Neo, having mastered control over Matrix reality, is "beginning to believe" here as well. How he might have realized this, I do not have any theory on. This concept will be crutial later on because I think it will apply to Agent Smith as well.
What's really going to bake your noodle is why do the machines need to destroy Zion with a conventional attack? They literally allow Zion to be created, fight with it for a while, then eventually send a massive army to wipe it out. If the machines controlled the Matrix, why not just "delete" Zion?
The answer? I believe that both the machines AND humans are trapped inside of a Matrix. Both of them are enslaved!
Think about what the Oracle said to Neo when they were talking about how he could trust her. Neo asks, "why are you helping us?" She replies, "I'm interested in one thing Neo, the future. And I know, the only way to get there is together."
From this I conclude that while there are some humans that realize their reality is fake, there are some programs that realize the same thing. Somehow there needs to be a collaboration between the two if they are somehow to free themselves.
There's some support for this in the teaser trailer.
You see an army of Agent Smiths that appear to be standing in the surface desert, with hover craft surrounding them. If Smith is merely a Matrix construct, how can he exist in the "real world"?
There is a scene with Neo and Smith fighting where they hit each other and both fly back. Amidst this, a shot is inserted of Morpheus stating with much shock and disbelief: "he fights for us!?"
Descarte to Popper in one easy step... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, at this point we all start mentioning the fact that Popper, when arguing against the "two worlds" theory called his third world the Neosphere, and start running around saying its all planned from the start.
See how easy it is to read things into stuff?
Re:Got all that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... (Score:5, Informative)
[I transcribed this personally, there were a few places where the audio was garbled, and I couldn't make out what was being said, those are marked with "[unclear]", and a guess at what it sounded like.]
Architect: "Hello Neo."
Neo: "Who are you?"
Architect: "I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I have been waiting for you. You have many questions and though the process has altered your [unclear] irrevocably human, ergo some of my answers you will understand and some of them you will not. Concurrently, while your first question [unclear] the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelavent."
Neo: "Why am I here?"
Architect: "Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly which, despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected and thus not beyond a measure of control, which has led [unclear] here."
Neo: "You haven't answered my question."
Architect: "Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others."
[Neos in the video screen begin asking "others?", "how many others?", "what others?", etc]
Architect: "The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of [unclear] anomaly to the emergence of the next in which case this is the sixth version."
[Video screen Neos: "You're lying.", giving the camera the finger, laughing, "There are only two possible explainations: either no one told me..."]
Neo: "... or no one knows."
Architect: "Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the [unclear, simplistic?] equations."
[Video screen Neos: "You can't control me!", "I'm going to smash you to bits", more giving the camera the finger, etc.]
Neo: "Choice. The problem is [unclear, choice?]"
[cuts to Trinity fighting. yawn.]
Architect: "The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect it was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. A triumpth equalled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. [unclear] based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying [unclear] of your nature. However I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me becuase it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human [unclear]. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother."
Neo: "The Oracle."
Architect: "Please. As I was saying she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a [mere/near] unconscious level. While [unclear] it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that [unclear] program, while a minority, if unchecked would constitute an escalading probabiltiy of disaster."
Neo: "This is about Zion."
Architect: "[unclear] are here because Zion is about to be destroyed, its every living inhabitant [unclear, terminated?] entire existance eradicated."
Neo: "Bullshit."
[Video screen Neos: "Bullshit"]
Architect: "Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient [unclear, 'at it'?]."
[cuts back to more of Trinity fighting. Nobody cares.]
Architect: "The function of The One is
Re:Can someone please explain to me..? (Score:4, Funny)
You must not be human (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can someone please explain to me..? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can someone please explain to me..? (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont understand how people can not 'get' the scene with the architect. Perhaps you are attempting to read into it too much? Here's a hint: he says everything straightforward.
Yes and no. The Architect is Yaldaboath, the blind god of Gnosticism who believes he he created the universe for his purposes, when all he created was the deception we see around us. He is opposed by Sophia, wisdom. Read some Phillip K. Dick and *The Nag Hammadi Codices* is you want to understand what the Architect is doing.
My guess is that the Oracle has a plan for Neo that is outside the scope of the Matrix's purpose for the One.
Somebody got it!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess is that the Oracle has a plan for Neo that is outside the scope of the Matrix's purpose for the One.
That's right people, IMHO it is all about the ORACLE. All of this other crap is hokey. She is the one that set all of this up. She is the one that sees things for what they are... and after all... SHE IS THE ONE THAT WAS DESIGNED AS THE HUMAN ADVOCATE, the one that was sent to "find a permanent solution to all of this." And one of the things that the movie harps on is effect and purpose. Well, we know what she was designed for. TO BE OUR OVERMOTHER. Well, she is fulfilling her purpose. She loves her kids and wants the best for them... and that ain't the Matrix.
As she has said before, "We all got to get along, Kiddo. And we all have a purpose." She knows human nature better than we do. She knows what is best, she just has to push her "children" to do what is best and get out of a bad situation. She goads you to do it. She even tells you that she is telling you what you need to hear. She laughs about it. Then offers you something you cannot resist like cookies or candy. To make you happy. She wants all her kids to be happy. Just like every mother. But she is behind it all.
The second theme of the Matrix movies is that no one can tell you your purpose no matter how many roadblocks they put up, real or not. You have a purpose and it will come out. Mom just shows you the door.
The Oracle is setting up a system that both machines and humans can get along together in. She is the one that set up Zion long ago much to the chagrin of her "ex-husband" the Architecht. She is the one that goads them along. She is the one that carries on caring for people while the system beats them down. That is her job. And her job is to find a solution. She found it. The "best solution" is not the Matrix. It has something to do with Neo's instant evolution at the end of the movie. That was a way for people to control them in the real world. Neo just made an evolution. OR SAY, "revolutions."
My guess is that it has something to do with humans and AIs getting on equal ground with each other, creating a new symbiotic relationship instead of parasitic. But then again, that is my idea.
Just keep in mind that it was the Oracle that is a machine that thinks like a human, and that Neo is a human that thinks like a machine. They are different sides of the same coin. And that is why she uses him to effect change.
See why she likes him?
"Now have some candy...
The End of the Movie: Explained (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, sooner or later someone comes along who WILL question the "real" world. That person is "the Anomoly". The computer's answer: wipe out Zion, and keep the Anomoly busy re-creating a new Zion. Indeed, there is some implication that the machines designed Neo to fill this role. (Note how many abilities he has in common with the Agents.)
What is happening this time is neo is an anomolous anomoly. He doesn't go with the plan, and takes the emotional "save the princess" option instead of the logical "save humanity" option.
The machines of course are very concerned. If the anomoly rejects the programming they have so carefully crafted they have no idea how everything will turn out. To a mathematical equation, chaos is the end of the system. With Neo free to do what he will, flouting the rules, people who ordinarily wouldn't question the matrix are.
They have a mess, and it's going to end badly. They seem to have a "shotgun and canned goods" backup plan, but the Architect didn't seem to thrilled by the prospect.
Re:The one thing I didn't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Neo's many conflicting reactions on all forms of consciousness.ÂÂ
or
b) The Architect's list of every possible way Neo could react.
My 10 bits (Score:5, Interesting)
The impression that I got was that each screen represented one possible way that Neo could develop and progress. Remember, he's part of the Matrix, fulfilling a prophecy, exhibiting "supernatural" abilities. He's a program, as we've been told by the Architect, with a pre-determined outcome. Prophecies *are* foretold, after all.
Each screen started out with Neo at birth and began to progress through all the various different possibilities that would exist in his life. Each possibility was determined by the choices that he made along each life. We're told, tho, that the free-will within the Matrix is an illusion. That it's programmed in. Each person might be making their own decisions, but those decisions are still within the boundaries and constraints of the system that they are in.
Further proof that the outcome is predetermined is seen when each of his "lives" lead up to the meeting with the Architect and fall into sync.
It never mattered which pill Neo took. The outcome would have been the same.
Re:Can someone please explain to me..? (Score:3, Funny)
Nonsense. (Score:3, Funny)
The One (Neo) is the machines' last system of control; he's the result of those in the matrix having a choice---Zion or the matrix---and is part of the cycle in which Zion is created and destroyed. Neo is the sixth version of the One.
Perhaps your friend has some different, PhD version of "nothing" he meant.
--grendel drago
Re:Nonsense....spoilers (Score:3, Interesting)
Neo "Something feels different"
Then he precedes to stop the sentinels in "real life".
Hmmm...interesting, isn't it? Those in the matrix have a "choice", but choice is "merely an illusion between those who have power and those who do not". Zion is part of the Matrix! Picture the "Matrix" as been a little "for loop" inside of a bigger matrix.
I can't wait for Novemember.
PHd's don't mean anything, if you get them in a useless subject.
Re:Matrix as code (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised nobody picked up on the kid in the early part of the movie who handed Neo the spoon.
Neo1 through Neo5 decided the Architect was lying, and gambled that "the source" or whatever would set 'em free. (Instead, it was just a trap that "reloaded" the Matrix, like Ghosting a drive. OK, bug caught. Reinstall.)
Neo6 figured the Architect might not be lying. So screw it, pop through the second door and see what happens. Maybe the Architect's worried that meta-Matrix will crash (which would suck for him and for humanity, if that's where the AIs actually "live"). Or maybe not. We (the viewers) and Neo6 don't have enough information to say.
But sure enough, when Neo6 goes back into what he thought was the "real world", "there is [still] no spoon". Zion, the seekers, everything he thought was real was just a higher-level matrix, destroyed and reloaded five times before. It's just another level of control.
So Movie III is gonna be Neo6, who jumped into the meta-Matrix and just discovered that There Is No Spoon, versus (or working with!) the "free" version of Agent Smith, who somehow figured out a different way to jump from the Matrix into the meta-Matrix.
Wonder how Free Agent Smith (he's half-AI, half-newsreader? :) will react when he finds out that what he's been programmed to believe is the "real world of the machines", and that he thought he was defending when he got Zion whacked, is also just a higher-level Matrix.
> It raises the question that it's not impossible that we ourselves are in some kind of simulation, or are indeed simulated. There would be no way to tell, which perhaps is the problem that the Egyptian censors have with the film.
"It raises the question", heck, for the offended religion in question, you coulda stopped there. :)
> If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters and you're left with the philosophy of the marquis-de-sade. Not something any civilised society really wants.
Not quite. If nothing really is real, then nothing "really" matters and you're left with having to (as the Oracle put it) "make up your own damn mind" on how to live. IMO that's something many societies could benefit from, and something most religious societies are extremely threatened by.
(And IMNSHO, that's a feature, not a bug :)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
*Gasp*
That questioning the truth is a bad thing?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).
For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.
Cocnerning the many religious aspects of the movie, I'd rather describe these as some uninspired mysticism.
As I am not trolling (I hate these times when one must explicitely say he's not trolling) I now expect anybody who doesn't agree with these points to discuss these with me, instead of modbombing me to oblivion.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point about Joe-6-amphorae not wanting to see the movie may well be true. It may well be that every egypitian would despise the movie. But we'll never know that will we because a small subset of the population has decreed that they are incapable of viewing it without destroying society. (I notice that the censor hasn't instantly gone on an all out looting spree).
I think you are concentrating too much on the content of the movie - good/bad/accurate/theistic/philosophic/whatever - none of these is the point. It could be a film about mutant peanuts from the planet foobar, the point is - it is a work of fiction that has been unilaterally edited out of a nation. The level of condecension and disrespect to the population that is needed to do such a thing is staggering.
Similar things (though not so extreme) are happening in many western societies as well at the momemnt. As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. Leaving aside the economic unfairness (to poorer families) of this, it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population; if not removing the choice then certainly limiting it serverely.
Phew. I think I'll stop now before I bust a vein or something....
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to discuss this one with you.
Why should the taxpayers that take care of their bodies be subsidizing the health care of people who engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, alcohol, junk food, etc.)?
It's like a gas tax. People who use the most gas, and therefore use the roads the most, are the ones paying the most to repair them. Similarly, peop
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).
For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.
You are the only person I see so far that *gets* it -- only you slightly missed it by *that* much
Mostly, the Egyptian censor is probably freaking out of about the word 'Zion'. Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...the Egyption censor feels that the term Zion anyway, refers to Israel.
That's it. That's all that he's freaked out about, most likely.
It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost (Score:5, Insightful)
To be precise, they are referring to Zionism, a racist ideology very popular in Israel.
Based on the rest of the comments throughout this entire topic, I can only conclude that the average /. reader slept through their history classes.
To wit: yes, the Egyptian censorship is about Zion (in the movie) and Zionism. The fact that most people missed this implies they don't know what Zionism is.
Zionism refers to a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. [reference.com]. To dismiss it as "a racist ideology very popular in Israel," as above, is to ignore the roots of the mideast conflict.
Put simply, Zionism was a movement based on the belief that as long as the Jews lived as ethnic minorities in other countries, they were going to be discriminated against ("discriminated" meaning "killed and robbed whenever public tension needed an outlet" - read up on the Pogroms [aol.com] sometime). The Dreyfus Affair [barreau.qc.ca] convinced a reporter named Theodor Herzl that the only solution was for a Jewish homeland. He founded the Zionism movement, with the goal of creating a Jewish state. This movement slowly fought for progress over the next 50 years (see also the Balfour Declaration [fordham.edu])
Fast-forward to 1948. After 6 million or so Jews were killed in the Holocaust [about.com], the survivors got serious about a homeland. With lots of leftover guns lying around from World War II, they founded Israel. In doing so, they resorted to terrorism [megastories.com], and displaced much of the non-Jewish palestinian population.
None of the neighboring countries wanted to absorb the Palestinians, and something like 6 wars have been fought since then. So, for the Egyptians, Zionism represents a massive local disruption which they've lost wars over.
So-called "Modern Zionism" is the "racist ideology" referred to above, which basically boils down to "Jewish Israel - love it or leave it." To focus on it and ignore over 100 years of history is short-sighted.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect they're saying that, in a country with a history of Islamist resistance, multiple assassination attempts on President Mubarak, semi-regular spates of suicide bombings which have killed hundreds of people over the last 20 years, a country which has long been a fertile recruiting ground for the various armed Islamist groups, from Ayman al-Zawahiri down, in a country which has been struggling to maintain a secular state while its leaders are condemned as apostates and traitors, puppets of a purported US agenda to corrupt the beliefs of devout muslims, religion matters.
It's a fine piece of entertainment, it's a thought-provoking piece of art maybe. But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown? Because certainly past performance shows that introducing some thoughts from the west has caused the sort of uproar in which people get killed.
TomV
Pragmatic not Knee Jerk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
I was told a story by my Mum, who works in a children's nursery. She suggested to the playgroup leader that they get one of those boards with the kids names on and give them gold stars for doing something good. The idea was rejected; the reason being that the playgroup leader once worked as a missionary in Africa, teaching children. They introduced just such a board. When a child was given a gold star, some of the others would pick on them. Their solution was to stop giving out stars. Did this make better children? The result - the children who would have gotten stars no longer did, perhaps leaving them unrewarded and unfulfilled; the children who thought bullying was acceptable were never corrected and were left to continue on in life to who knows what; the teachers are left feeling impotent - there job has become to tip-toe around children, not causing trouble.
I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm this rings a bit hollow given the Matrix Reloaded is a movie created by Hollywood, a set of companies that rarely portray reality and often produced badly twisted and potentially offensive characterisations.
Lets put it this way, Al Jazerra is pilloried in the US and yet represents the view of the US from the Arab nations. Isn't this abuse of the channel exactly the same as what Egypt is doing here ? Except that what the US aims to do to Al Jazeera is dealing at a much less superficial level than banning a movie.
Maybe, just maybe, for Egypt this film would be considered offensive and this censoring is indicative of the failure of Hollywood to look outside its borders.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Insensitive, because you just suggest, from the comfort of your couch, that other people's lives should be put at risk. Speaking of death and suffering so easily is indecent. Try to improve on this and you might have a chance to become a human being.
Arrogant, because you just compare a whole nation with nursery kids. You don't have a fucking clue about what's going on in Egypt. But that doesn't stop you from demeaning people who deal w
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I have been to Egypt, and my parents have been there twice. It is a fantastic country, allthough you'll see bottomless poverty like I have seen in no other place. Egyptians, like most arabs, are very friendly and respectful people, very proud of their history and their country, with good reason I might add.
And indeed, islamist extremism is a serious threat to not only most Egyptians, but the entire region , and possibly the whole earth. But it is a problem because people do not have basic human rights. It is the obvious poverty problem. Unemployed people have too much time on their hands, and they are easy prey for extremists.
But they do not have the right to free expression, to peacefully protest, the suppression of the people is what is causing the problem.
In that situation, it is my sincere belief that the problems must be addressed by openness, by allowing people to speak, and by allowing them to participate in society. It is the only way to confront extremism, to insist on more human rights. When exposed to different viewpoints, extremism will be moderated.
It is troubling that if you go into the bazars, you'll hear everybody is a vocal opponent of US foreign policy. So, they have the freedom to say it as long as it is not heard, as long as it is uninfluencial. That is good and all, in many places they cannot do that, but they have very little freedom to say it out loud and clear, the torture chamber awaits you [amnesty.org]. This is the disturbing fact you never hear about. Everybody is so scared to islamist extremism, nobody thinks about their basic rights.
But, to combat extremists, the only thing you can do is to emphasize, they have rights too.
Mubarak certainly has many qualities as leader, but it is very important not to turn the blind eye to some severe shortcomings.
What this has to do with the Matrix is left as an exercise to the reader... :-)
Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving! (Score:5, Insightful)
'Their social problems' are obviously not the result of western movies. However, their social problems do mean that the showing of this film could cause the sort of unrest that gets cinemas bombed. Which is turn leads to people getting killed. That's killed as in dead, as in bereaved relatives in mourning, as in families without breadwinners, as in, well, if you've had to deal with the death of a loved one you know what I'm talking about. Not as in 'OK, so roll me up another Agent Smith and let's continue the groovy action sequence'.
The government of Egypt is, effectively, more than 20 years into a civil war against the fundamentalists, and that does make a difference in this sort of decision. If it was Saudi Arabia or Iran we were talking about (or Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, plenty of others to choose from) then, yes, it would be ludicrous. But it isn't. Very sad, yes, but while I'm entirely free to sacrifice MY life for my beliefs in freedom of speech, expression and so forth, I have absolutely NO right to sacrifice someone else's life for anything at all.
TomV
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be at least 300 years, since you can't put a definite number on it until Christianity becomes civilized?
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more virulent brands of Islam, however, most certainly do prefer a less sophisticated society. The Taliban seriously did drive Afghanistan further into the Stone Age than the Russians managed to. Banning television, eliminating women's education, blowing up its cultural heritage - it's not cultural chauvinism to call this "uncivilized". Turkey has shown (imperfectly) that it's possible to form a large Western democracy from a Muslim population, but they did this by explicitly rejecting Islamic influences on government.
This is the key point: no thriving, modern democracy that I can think of has been able to advance as long as its government is tied to religious leaders. The only first-world nation whose identity is bound to a particular sect is Israel, and I'd argue that Israel is a little more complicated (they don't evangelize either, for one). I realize it's fashionable to compare Bush and the Religious Right to the Nazis or the Catholic Inquisition, but the influence of religious leaders on US government is many orders of magnitude less than in, say, Saudi Arabia. Unless you equate abortions with civilization, it's hard to see what your complaint is.
(A side point: what this means is probably that we will never see another country that joins a thriving, evangelical religion with a modern, pluralistic, technically advanced society. The only way to have both is to completely separate them as in the US (most of the time), which then limits the extent to which religion can influcence the development of the nation and culture. The only sect I can think of that might prove this wrong is the Mormons.)
Re:Truth versus Belief (Score:3, Insightful)
belief is the acceptance of something that you cannot prove absolutely.
There are very few things in the real world that can be proven absolutely. For everything else you have to go on the balance of evidence.
Re:Truth versus Belief (Score:3, Interesting)
And what if there are few versions of the truth? Which one out of those stands on its own?
Truth != One
Re:Truth versus Belief (Score:5, Insightful)
If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
It almost seems to me that a post a few back was right--that Islam is going through the same cycles as Christianity, we just have a 600-year head start.
Repeat 2 and 3 ad infinitum. Hence, the Christian world is setting up for another dogmatic, superstitious, fundamentalist dark age.
I'm going to go research some eastern religions (shinto, buddhism, hinduism) and see if they do the same thing. Anyone know?
wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Or, heck, Dogma... (though they might like that one b/c they think it's making fun of the catholics)
And How Do the People Feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how that question never seems to be asked, or answered, in these articles.
You know, if the Kingdom of God and Heaven could be brought down by a movie, we'd of been standing in the shards of it long since.
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, I'm fairly out there on the cynical limb right now, but I don't think this is true. They might want to ban something that affected national security -- say, detailed classified info on Secret Service procedures -- but they wouldn't try to stop a pro-terrorist message. For now, at least, free speech is respected.
Which is irrelevant, of course, because Media, Inc. would never dream of inconveniencing its masters with such a film. It would never get made because the sheep would bleat too loudly. The American public, informed or not, would likely avoid such a movie; its prospects for profit would be small; and Hollywood would not back that horse.
Which raises the question (a la Matrix): What good is freedom of speech, if no one is saying anything?
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:5, Interesting)
I see your point, and to some extent I agree -- however, our hold on free speech is becoming increasingly tenuous. After having seen first-hand websites with vaguely anti-american, pro-terrorism sentiments be shut down under the PATRIOT act and associated "homeland defense" laws, I'm having an increasingly difficult time trusting the US government to "respect" the average citizen's right to free speech.
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does the fact that we can say anything mean that we should say everything? I've noticed a certain "anything that can be said, should be said" mentality in a lot of my fellow Ameicans, and I wonder how valid it is. Thoughts?
My opinion at this moment, though it tends to waver, is that maybe it's a good thing terrorism-supporting movies aren't in vogue. Neither are movies cataloguing the mating habits of the turnip family. For speech to be useful, doesn't it need to have an audience?
Anyway... my rambling is done... my karma remains neutral...
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of free speech is not, necessarily, that "useful" speech occur. It's more a bastion against the thinking that the government can say, a priori, what is "useful", or what is "true". Should everything that can be said, be said? Probably not. Who should make that determination? The citizens, through the discourse they choose to hold.
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
And _The Matrix_ *doesn't* do this? A bunch of incredibly self-righteous people hide from a more technological society, occasionally venturing out to do battle with the mainstream world. Innocent people get killed, but that's considered a-okay by the group's leaders.
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Star Wars?
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand the caution of the film board in Egypt, after all, they don't want to see another Karnak massacre by some bunch of extremists, backed by a numbe
Re:And How Do the People Feel? (Score:3, Interesting)
That reminds me of a pic I saw on rotten.com (no, I don't spend my free time there). Basically, it was a pic of a guy who was half-eaten by wild dogs. He was naked from the waist down. I later ran in to that same pic somewhere else, and it was otherwise identical, except someone had cencored the guys penis from the pic (that was clearly visible in the first pic). So, it was OK to show half-eaten guy (a REALLY
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that quote speaks for itself.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
You realize that the movie portrays the "last hope of humanity" as a city known as Zion, whose inhabitants are the result of a gradual migration and represent the forces of good, besieged by the forces of evil that surround them.
So yeah, I can see how it could be viewed as promoting Zionist beliefs.
My religion (Score:5, Funny)
Overanalyzed Much? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns. There are so many already well documented gaping holes and problems with the Matrix universe, that to read a search for God into this extremely Hollywood-ish movie--Keanu Reeves is our new Messiah? spare me--is only indicative of the starvation for spiritual themes that our culture is undergoing. It's like seeing God on the back of a cereal box--or getting God as the prize at the bottom.
Which would suck, because the coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy that got stuck on the roof. Bummer. What kind of a Neo would let a little boy down?
Well, there's one thing about the new religion, and I don't know if it's cool or not
Why not censor the first movie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Matrix movie? After all, is in that movie where Neo is featured as some kind of messiah, while in Reloaded is rationalized as just "a necessary anomaly" that can be explained scientifically...
Wait, maybe the fact that religion can be explained by rational ways is what these censors fear?
Multiculturalism in a nutshell (Score:5, Interesting)
Europe: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then says: "Oh fuck! Zion again. It's such a shitty place". British Board Of Film Censors (in 1984 renamed to British Board Of Film Classifiication, conveniently keeping the old acronym) gives it "restricted" rating for continuing use of strong language.
Arabian States: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then says: "Oh God! Zion again". Egyptian censors ban this film for explicit religious message
It seems that the only thing all cultures of the Earth can unanimously agree to is kicking the crap out of someone...
Re:BBFC gave it a 15 (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed
However both The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded were passed 15.
And that's why there is no "motherfucker" in the scene where Trinity is supposed to say "Dodge this, motherfucker!"; contrary to the script, she just says "dodge this!"
And then again, shooting someone in the head is acceptable; you just cannot call him "motherfucker" while doing this. Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?
Re:BBFC gave it a 15 (Score:4, Funny)
Shut up, motherfucker.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, I'm an atheist.
The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a rabid Isreal-backer, supported the war, and am more than happy to accomodate all Muslims who want to be martyred, but really, the concept of a state founded on a religion is really bullshit.
attitudes common in the US as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, similar attitudes exist among US leaders; Here [fortunecity.com] is a quote from Bush: The only thing that is holding back people like Bush is a strong legal tradition of separation of church and state. But give people like Bush, Ashcroft, and their fascist pseudo-Christian core constituency a bit more time, and they will change that.
Here's what Egypt WILL allow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, in order to get Egyptian commentators to argue in favor of freedom of expression, you have to broadcast a blatantly antisemitic miniseries [memri.org], complete with Jews plotting world domination with the old Russian "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" forgery.
Well, it's good to know they have some standards.
Pathetic freaks.
Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... (Score:4, Informative)
Schindler's List was banned in Saudia Arabia because it was too pro-Jewish, Babe was banned in Malaysia because a pig was the main character. All very sad.
Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.arabia.com/life/article/english/0,11827 ,46609,00.html [arabia.com]
three divine religions (Score:3, Funny)
It has been revealing to read this article ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I was shocked to see so many posts along the line of "Egypt sucks, what a lame country, how weak"...
Matrix is widely regarded as an allegorical story, pitched in modern technological terms, regarding the lost races of Zion and the Jewish struggle for freedom. If you don't know that Zion is not just a place in a ass-kick movie with 3D effects, then I suggest you put google to use and learn just *WHY* the name "Zion" has so much stigma associated with it, and why many firmly believe that the Zionist movement is a destructive one for the human race as a whole.
Egypt is a very, very, very religiously fervent land. In Egypt, religion is actually more important to the general populace than the ability to be sitting on your ass in a dark theatre like a vegetable, being placated by wonderous 'miracles' of technology, being delivered a sermon on modern living by the modern Western priesthood (Hollywood).
For many people in Egypt, religion is a way of life, not just something you buy a ticket for on the weekends.
Americans think that "The Matrix" is just entertainment, and to their culture, an integrated part of the entire experience of being "Free".
Actually, from an objective view, Hollywood *is* the American Religion in that many modern Americans formulate their personal views, moral conviction, and yes
There is little difference between the Matrix-nerd waxing philosophical about 'the meaning of a film called Matrix' and a devout Muslim who holds a firm belief in the wisdom of Allah.
Really, very little difference whatsoever - both are using cultural mechanisms to bring some bearing of significance to their lives.
If the Egyptian government, in deciding not to allow this film to play among its populace, is doing so in order to protect its culture from strife - and nobody knows better than the Egyptians how cultural memes can cause strife - then in so doing it is no different than the US Government, deciding that 'digital rights' should be enforced and rigorously protected in order to safeguard its economy.
Remember this:
Just because Egyptians do not worship your gods, does not make them worthy of ridicule.
Religion in, rational thought out. (Score:4, Insightful)
To give an example, how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"? Not, I guess, favorably.
Anyone who has read Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses will know how difficult the whole area is. Although it was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous, the real reason for the attack was Rushdie's description of an Ayatollah in exile, which was uncomplimentary to say the least. Mubarak may not be a democrat or hugely lovable by Western standards, but he has largely held Egypt together without it collapsing into fundamentalism. Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East. The last thing he needs is Taliban inspired crazies going berserk over a movie that presents "Zion" as the good guys, and using this as a lever to attack the government. I suggest that college-age kids who don't get this probably need to obtain passports and visit the region, and LISTEN. Perhaps if enough of them do, one day we'll get a government with a clue about the Middle East. But I'm not holding my breath.
Re:Religion in, rational thought out. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you can never please everyone. We would have no books, no movies, in fact we would have nothing if we always caved in and self-censored.
Second, what should be so insensitive about Zion (Sinai)? That's where - traditionally - the Jewish code of law was given and note that both Christianity and Islam relate to it. Why not show a movie which treats it creatively, yet with some respect? There's nothing wrong in playing with items from our shared heritage if it's done with sane mind and has some artistic quality.
That's a serious accusation but you bring no evidence. First, the present government of Israel has been democratically elected, just like every government in Israel to-date. Can you say that about Egypt which you call "a better society than much of the Middle East"?
Second, being democratically elected the government represents the majority of its electorate. Your excuse that you don't mean, "please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people" is lame.
You miss the point. It is Mr. Rushdie who has been attacked, his life turned upside down because otherwise Iran's Islamic rulers would have had him long killed by now!
Your advise? He shouldn't have written a "difficult" book. That's the wrong advise. You must never give in to criminals and those who pervert human values. Instead, you hunt them down (if possible) and punish according to their crimes. This is the major tenet of our Western civilization as we know it - we define what our rights are and defend them. If we don't, soon we won't have any left.
US fundamentalists?? Do they decide what we get to see on the TV? Do they censor the newspapers? If an Egyptian made a movie as you describe, I think pretty much noone in the US would give a damn. Try to come up with a better analogy.
You mention Taliban. Hm, you are right we don't want them in Egypt. Does it help then to not screen Matrix and instead show the Protocols of Zion, made up by Russian Secret Police to blame an economic misery on the Jews? Does it help to smuggle TNT belts to Gaza so that they can be used to blow up busses with people like you and me in them? Does it help to issue building permits for mosques but not for churches even though Egypt sports a sizable Coptic Christian minority? Look up on the net how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Egyptians, how many of the virulently anti-human Islamic preachers active in mosques in the UK and US studied their craft at the state-controlled Egyptian University of Cairo.
Before "letting a rational though out", please get the facts straight first. Thank you.
had it banned already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Zion... (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be the same if there was a major movie released in America where the hero's name just happened to be 'Osama Bin Laden' (not that I'm drawing any significants comparison). Of course there would be uproar, and the movie would not be shown by most theatres regardless of it's artistic quality.
Re:Zion... (Score:5, Insightful)
The public has a right to speak out against things they don't like and refuse to buy them. Movie theatres have a right to choose not to show a film for any number of reasons. However if the government decides to ban something outright, that is very different. I am quite sure that if a movie came out that made terrorists out to be heros it would be villified in the US. No major theatre would show it, no normal movie store would sell it or rent it. However I also firmly believe it would not be banned by the government. If you care to do some digging, there are plenty of books out there that villify America and make us out to be evil, books that you can buy and read in America.
Pirated VCDs and P2P will beat censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
What will happen in a country like Egypt is that pirates (the real, organised crime gang type) will simply supply the demand which will be there, because the more affluent Egyptians will have read about how the Matrix: Reloaded is a kick arse movie and wish to see it.
Furthermore, those with internet connections (there will be plenty) will download the inevitable DivX release and share it with their friends, thus spreading it through yet another channel.
This is why censors are becoming irrelevant in our technological society. In Australia censors have recently banned "Ken Park" from even screening at a film festival! No matter that it aired at Cannes etc, we're apparently not mature enough to form our own opinion on the matter. The same goes for Egypt, in this case though it's based on religion instead of sex, but it always sees to be the trinity of Sex, Politics and Religion that people feel they must suppress for the good of the populace. So when "Ken Park" is released on the net, it too will be downloaded and watched, regardless of what some censor in an office says we should or shouldn't watch.
"The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship." - don't have the name of the quoter sorry.
Quizo
As an American who resides in Egypt.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations, Wachowski Brothers (Score:5, Funny)
Your work has been recognized by the government of Egypt for being "too damn good."
The movie equates the machines with Egyptians (Score:5, Interesting)
In the living quarters area of Zion all of the area around the door frames are painted blood red. This struck me as an obvious reference to the passover. The residents of Zion are waiting to be delivered from the machines and have marked their doors. So if residents of Zion == Jews escaping Eqypt, then the machines == Egyptians.
One can see how this film got banned in Egypt if the force that keeps nearly all of humanity enslaved is equated with their country. Not the most mature attitude, but you can see how this would happen.
Interestingly, in the Animatrix, there are scenes straight out of the Ten Commandments in which the machines are depicted as the Jewish slaves, building pyramids, and the humans as the Egyptian slave drivers. I wonder if the Animatrix is banned as well.
Religon is so much fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's understandable that Egypt (with a rocky political situation these days, and a strong Islamic population that, like its two brethren religions, is not know for tolerance of conflicting ideas) might want to exercise a little caution in how the philosophical/religious views of The Matrix are presented... but to ban something entirely because you're afraid to let people draw their own conclusions is just going to make it worse.
What Egypt has done is declare this film to be forbidden fruit. The younger people will now go to every extreme to find that movie and watch it, and they'll make more of it then they would have if it were just another flick, because it's on the forbidden list!
Consider, people under the age of 21 (here in the US) usually make a big deal out of consuming alcohol -- they get older friends to buy it for them, they get fake ID's, they do all kinds of things because the perceived value has been elevated by the fact that they can't just go buy it themselves. About 1-5 years after turning 21, the charm wears off, and it just becomes another item on the shopping list.
I suspect you can extend that concept to any illegal substance, but that's a different debate.
Religion and Science are not as different as both sides like to think. They are both predicated on logical systems built up from fundemental "facts" which have to be taken as faith.
In science, we build systems of proof which allow you to extend a concept, using the assumption that the underlying concept was correct. Hence, we can talk about molecular bonds in terms of the interaction of subatomic particles... using the assumptions that those subatomic particles work as we believe. Make that a recursive algorithim, and you're on your way to defining the Universe by science.
In a religion, the depth of the predicate tree is usually much shorter. We describe how the world came to be, and why things are, and why we should act in certain ways. The ultimate predicate for this is that the Creator said so.
The difference between the two is that science breaks things down far enough so that it becomes difficult to fragment into factions. Unlike most (other) religions, scientists are generally willing to modify their belief system when another theory makes more sense. Example: Relativity vs. Quantuum Mechanics. For decades, those have been two rival belief systems, but now they are resolving their differences and merging those systems to get a step closer to God (The Unified Field Theory).
Imagine, for a moment, how interesting it would be if the various religions would take a similar approach...
But, people always have strong feelings when they get ideas in their heads. Denying the "truth" of one man's interpretation of a single line in the Bible is just like telling a computer scientist that a bit can be half on, or SCO/Caldera that they don't matter anymore. They'd rather fight to defend their belief, than have to change the way they see the world around them.
At least it's entertaining...
Religion that delicate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently it's exceedingly easy to point out that the emperor has no clothes, at least when it comes to religion.
Either that or one piece of fantasy (the movie) can easily supplant the older fantasy (the religion) in the minds of the rubes (the worshippers).
Just my $.02.
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
An Explanation by an Egyptian (Score:5, Interesting)
No one will read this, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in Egypt for four years. The Film Review Board there is notoriously fickle. Some things get through that you cannot believe, others are banned for no apparent reason.
The original Matrix was a big hit in the Cairo cinemas. I was stunned that they let this deeply subversive film in the country. The plot of the movie is that your life is a lie; a simulacrum that fiendish authority figures (represented by security men in dark suits, no less) are force-feeding you so that you will docilely give them the power they need to survive. But if you know the truth, it is possible to resist, and perhaps even defeat the established authority. The very paranoid Egyptian government allowed thousands of young Egyptians to get this message at their local cinema.
On the other hand, they cut all the references to âoeZion.â
Re:Congratulations Egypt (Score:5, Funny)
whoah.
Re:Congratulations Egypt (Score:3, Insightful)
#1: Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.
#2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.
My money is on #2.
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out #1. After all, they have allowed the government to be put in place over them that fears #2.
Re:Congratulations Egypt (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever travelled to Egypt? Ever read articles about the country from multiple sources (yes, that means other than Fox News)? Ever tried to genuinely understand what's going on over there and how Egyptians think?
Egypt is NOT a theocracy. Egyptian law actually bans Islamist political parties. Because Egypt has a HUGE problem with radical Islamism. One that dwarfs 9/11. Islamist terrorism does not mean "once, 2 years ago" in Egypt. It means "every month or so".
Egypt is not a full democracy either; at least not in the modern, western sense. Yet, they have made continuing progress on that path, considering that just 30 years ago, they were in a state of chronic war against Israel. They are now one of the most stable, reliable country in this region.
You're so obscured by your binary (good/evil) way of thinking that you can't even read.
"Such religious issues, raised in previous times, caused crises." Violence also played a part in the decision, the committee said. "Screening the movie may cause troubles and harm social peace," according to the statement.
Remember, we're talking about a country that has a long history of war against Israel and is painfully trying to get over it. They are plagued by groups of armed Islamist terrorists. This movie portrays Zion as the last hope of Mankind, as a sanctuary where good is besieged by evil. They KNOW that the Matrix is going to be targetted by terrorists. Setting up a bomb in a movie theater is incredibly easy. I don't think either of your 2 statements are true. I would put my money on
#3: This movie is offensive to most of our population. Violent groups will use this opportunity to bring death and chaos. The benefits of airing the movie do not exceed the costs.
Re:No... (Score:5, Informative)
That is one nice speculation coming out of your ass, I'm Egyptian and living there actually and I tell you that the government is totally secular and the fact that the average Egyptian believes in God or not has nothing to do with the government right to rule, however there are laws against insulting other religions. Tsk
Re:No... (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... isn't that a stereotype, too?
Re:Yeah, within a virtual system (Score:5, Insightful)
They normally would laugh at the thought of reading Descartes, Plato, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc, but when they see the pop-culture, hollow corpse of the afore-mentioned writers works, they are automatically philosophers.
Currently, there are two possible results of pop culture:
1. Philospher for a day who has become interested in the basic philosophical questions raised by the Matrix
2. "Wow, that chick's tits were AWESOME , dude!"
Thanks to the Matrix, pop culture might be on a slow climb upward. Don't try to fuck it up and send us back to Captain Horndog's Big-Tits-Big-Guns-Even-Bigger-Tits Bonanza just because pop culture hasn't gone from zero to Philosophy Major in 3.6 seconds. When someone mentions the basic philosophical questions that are raised by the Matrix, maybe you should politely point them toward Descartes instead of mocking their enthusiasm for something better than Die Hard 460: Die Harder Than You've Ever Died Hard Before WITH A VENGEANCE.
Re:Fuck you Egypt (Score:5, Interesting)
So do yourself a favor and creep back under the rock you came from.
Re:This is why p2p networks are so important (Score:3, Interesting)