V for Vendetta

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

In other words, the problem was consecutive prepositions, not the verb.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

"Robert" <rdbake.TakeThisOut@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:1146265148.542175.138580@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> mr_director wrote:
>> V is a man who believed in fighting for freedom.
>>
>> Any opposition to that?
>
> Haven't seen the movie (I was seriously disappointed by Reloaded and
> Revolutions, so I'm not going to be rushing out to see anything by the
> W's.)
>
> But in the grander sense of the question? Freedom fighter vs.
> terrorist? The victor writes the history. If we (the US) had lost the
> Revolutionary War, George Washington would probably be considered a
> terrorist.

And if Hitler had won WWII...?

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

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

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

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

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

>> What do my personal views have to do with this?
>
> Come on out, Mr. Wizard. I see you hiding behind that curtain Hollywood
> put
> up for you.

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


> When people blow up government buildings, people get hurt.

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


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

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

>> When you are done amusing yourself with the Internet, when you step away
>> from your computer, when you finish patting yourself on the back and
>> congratulating yourself on what a fine job you did putting that Istlota
>> guy
>> in his place ... ask yourself the following question:
>
> Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
> pointless, as far as I'm concerned.

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

But he is trying. And it is entertaining me.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

>> Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
>> pointless, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> The subject here is "V for Vendetta". Why are you participating in it if
> you
> have no opinion about V?

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


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

"JPM III" <jpmccord.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qAo6g.39600$_z2.35186@dukeread02...
>>> Given that I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT "V", your point is pretty
>>> pointless, as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> The subject here is "V for Vendetta". Why are you participating in it if
>> you
>> have no opinion about V?
>

Trying again...

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

Having an opinion is not a prerequisite for discussion of any topic.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

"mr_director" <collegeisamovie RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146251084.685993.248790@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > From American's point of view, yes. From another's, maybe not.
> > It's how you look at it.
>
> You can't argue that, really.

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

(Sorry. I had so much fun with the grammar wars elsewhere in this thread,
and I couldn't resist!)
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you do?


Istlota
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

"JPM III" <jpmccord.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XPn6g.39592$_z2.16208@dukeread02...
> A false prophecy is not a prophecy. A prophecy requires something a bit
more
> supernatural than "we manipulated you and, lucky for all of us, things
> worked out." The idea of a prophecy was introduced in the first Matrix
film,
> but it was torn completely apart in Reloaded and Revolutions... which was
> the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Istlota
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

>> A false prophecy is not a prophecy. A prophecy requires something a bit
> more
>> supernatural than "we manipulated you and, lucky for all of us, things
>> worked out." The idea of a prophecy was introduced in the first Matrix
> film,
>> but it was torn completely apart in Reloaded and Revolutions... which was
>> the point.
>
> Careful. You are skating dangerously close to admitting that some aspects
> of
> the vision of the original author of the Matrix (who ever that may be)
> were
> abandoned, probably not even understood, by the authors (who ever they may
> be) that wrote the screenplay for Reloaded and Revolutions.

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


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

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


>> Unless... you mean to say that you already know it's going to some true
>> by
>> the grace of some divine glimpse into the future, in which case... I'd
> want
>> you to tell me more, but as is the custom for anyone who claims to know
> the
>> future, you would just be treated as delusional and ignored.
>
> Well, yes, I will be ignored. But, I will tell you more anyway.
>
> Not a glimpse into the future, Asclepius. A glimpse into the now, into the
> present.
>
> How to convey the Truth of Spirit to the spiritually immature? That has
> been
> the challenge for sages for so many millennia! Yeshua used parables,
> simple
> stories whose deep spiritual meaning remained hidden from those with eyes
> who could not see. Brahmin hid Truth within fictional characters cast into
> the roles of teacher and student. The ancients of Kemet simply refused to
> disclose Truth unto anyone not first initiated into the mystery system of
> the Hidden, the Unknowable, Amen.

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

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


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

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


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

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

>> > Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a let down, and that the
>> > 3rd "Matrix" was even worse.
>>
>> Horrible assumption, or simply bad information.
>
> Well, not _everyone_, but it's pretty clearly a majority
> position, from what I've read/seen.

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


>> I love how the Wachowskis did the
>> UN-Hollywood thing and took their movie in the mathematical/systemic
>> direction, instead of simply focusing on the kung fu.
>
> I think the first movie is proof you can wrap up a very interesting
> and complex core story in an action/adventure setting and be both
> commercially and critically successful. The second two movies
> look/sound/feel like a couple of freshman philosophy majors debating
> after a few two many glasses of wine.

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

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

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


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

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


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

I prefer the ones that tie more directly into the Ws' story, or at least
don't conflict with it.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

JPM III wrote:
> >> > Everyone agrees that the 2nd "Matrix" was a let down, and that the
> >> > 3rd "Matrix" was even worse.
> >>
> >> Horrible assumption, or simply bad information.
> >
> > Well, not _everyone_, but it's pretty clearly a majority
> > position, from what I've read/seen.
>
> The majority of people who mouth off about it -- many of whom complain
> loudly and without hesitation -- are not the majority of all people. The
> movie, much like the original, has a significant underground following...
> mostly people who are intelligent enough not to make a verbal argument out
> of it, because it isn't worth their time. (It isn't worth mine either,
> except that I enjoy the discussion.)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(in re Animatrix)
> I prefer the ones that tie more directly into the Ws' story, or at least
> don't conflict with it.

Hehehehe. Ah, they're canon, approved by the W's! Get out wit yer
conflicts! :)
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta