V for Vendetta

mr_director wrote:
>They are mostly confused.

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

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

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

..
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

JPM III wrote:
> > It doesn't matter - they were bad _movies_. The first movie was a
> > good movie with some very intriquing ideas underpinning it. The second
> > two were poorly done movies that got 'in your face' with a mish-mash of
> > all sorts of ideas that were jumbled on top of a poorly told story.
>
> Poorly _understood_ story. The story is brilliant, whether people get it or
> not.

Irrelevant to whether or not they were good movies.

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

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

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

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

>
> > I really think the only _logical_ possibility is Matrix-in-Matrix.
>
> Logical because you can't rationalize any other possibility?

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

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

JPM III wrote:

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

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



> It has nothing to do with all the underlying messages.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> > Ever listen to those really dark old German operas? I don't understand
> > a word of 'em. Like some of 'em, though. Good music. Go figure.
>
> You "get" them. Or, maybe more accurately, they get through to you. That's
> how pretty much everything works to those who enjoy it.

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

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

JPM III wrote:

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

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

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

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

With me so far?

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

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

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

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

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

Also... keep in mind that our most basic instinct is survival. Everything
else only stems from that, and everyone else understands that in some way.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

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

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


>> 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.

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

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


>> 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.

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


> I really think the only _logical_ possibility is Matrix-in-Matrix.

Logical because you can't rationalize any other possibility?
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

"mr_director" <collegeisamovie.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147027577.649960.247480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If you say that the second and third Matrix films are poorly told
> stories, then you may not know what elements make a good story.
> However, there are plenty of well told stories out there that you
> simply may not like. I'm sure you can think of a good movie with a poor
> story. Jurassic Park: The Lost World comes to mind as a well told poor
> story.
>
> If all three Matrix movies were created within three years (like Lord
> of the Rings), I think people would have received the second two much
> better. The problem I find is that people became so involved in the
> first film (and understood it so well after so many repeated viewings)
> that they were shocked and confused when they saw the second film. And
> when the third film didn't directly answer some of the questions that
> the second film raised, people just discredited both sequels.

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

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

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


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

Exactly.


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

Exactly, again.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

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

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


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

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

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


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

You "get" them. Or, maybe more accurately, they get through to you. That's
how pretty much everything works to those who enjoy it.
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

"JPM III" <jpmccord RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FEt7g.3578$4H.1498@dukeread03...

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

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

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

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

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

Istlota
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta 

>> For starters, I find holes in their logic and exploit them carefully and
>> tactfully so as to show them the light with their eyes closed. Then they
>> will willingly seek the answers to what is truly unknown.
>
> That approach only works with reasonable people. Certainly, all sane
> humans
> are capable of discerning wisdom. But, then there is that ego factor. That
> attitude that seeks to win, to be right, and to hell with truth, logic, or
> reason..

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


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

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


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

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

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

>> > It doesn't matter - they were bad _movies_. The first movie was a
>> > good movie with some very intriquing ideas underpinning it. The second
>> > two were poorly done movies that got 'in your face' with a mish-mash of
>> > all sorts of ideas that were jumbled on top of a poorly told story.
>>
>> Poorly _understood_ story. The story is brilliant, whether people get it
>> or
>> not.
>
> Irrelevant to whether or not they were good movies.

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


>> This is essentially what every movie is, but the difference with the
>> Matrix
>> is that it is an incredibly complex plot that managers to remain coherent
>> and true to itself if people can simply grasp the ideas and put them
>> together... and it's all there, if people just pick up on the details,
>> which
>> is nearly impossible the first time or even the first several times
>> through.
>
> It lost any semblance of coherence the instant Neo starts
> demonstrating psychic powers. Or whatever it was he did to knock down
> Sentinels in the Real.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

> I'm really glad you wrote the following paragraph. You jogged loose
> some repressed memories....hehehe.
>
>> Also, removing or reducing some filler scenes (like the rave scene --
>> only
>> needed about 15 seconds of that, if any at all -- they could have just
>> cut
>> to Trinity and Neo, or skipped that altogether) and even cutting back a
>> little on the final fight scene between Neo and Smith just to further
>> flesh
>> out some of the Matrix's falling apart... things like that could have
>> been
>> useful.
>
> Dear gawd the Rave and Morpheus's messianic speech. Absolutely horrific
> work.
>
> And here's something you can explain to me - now, did I miss something,
> or aren't Neo and Trin bunking together on the Neb? Hey, ya know, I was
> kinda, "Aw, isn't that sweet." and of course everybody expected it, and
> I _really_ don't think there was any sort of indication of there being
> any sort of sexual taboos, right? So.....OK, I'm pretty sure these two
> are doin' the Wild Thing on Morph's boat. (Yes, I know it's not a
> boat.)

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

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

The Matrix, unrated cut...


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

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

"JPM III" <jpmccord RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9iM8g.26404$fG3.23903@dukeread09...
> Emotive storytelling is just good storytelling. You seem to think it
> cheapens the movie, and maybe it does for some people. But I think it's
just
> smart.

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

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

Istlota
 >> Stay informed about: V for Vendetta