The Great Matrix Debate

[Bond]

I was thinking more along the lines of how unfortunate it is people were unable to appreciate The Matrix Reloaded as much as I did. I thought it was a blast. Oh it was deep and intelligent too by the way.

It is funny how many people who wish to lambast the movie interpret the characters so literally on one hand but also draw symbolic associations on the other--and then fail to connect the two. From your comments Eurytus on the apparent paradox between Neo's near omnipotence yet powerless, it would seem you take it as simply inconsistent. You do not appreciate the inherent tragedy in the situation which gathers even more nuance when viewed from the oft associated (sometimes disparagingly) Christological point of view, or even an existentialist humanistic point of view. Christ was the Son of God but he seemed helpless on the cross. Do you appreciate the paradox there? Perhaps you aren't Christian so how about just being a regular adult. You have so much more self-determination now than when you were a child. You are stronger, more educated, you know more how people, society, and the system work but why is it you cannot do more to better the world? Does that strike home more? Think of the Matrix movies in terms of the cycle of life and you might begin to get more out of it. And that's just one more perspective one could adopt in judging them. The whiz bang special effects and action seem to be distracting for some people and not only in the way they claim.

Which brings me to another point of wonder about all the flak The Matrix Reloaded's burley brawl has gotten. How can one point to this and complain but pass lightly over Legolas's surfing up and down of an oversized elephant?

As for what you think would have made for an interesting Matrix film, you're free to your opinion. I'd have to put in though that a bunch of statistics like mortality rate, number of people freed from the Matrix and the like in a make-believe world don't strike me as having much more significance than the interactions of the main players in the story or even the competent intermixing of diverse philosophical commentary. Those "facts" of the Matrix world may be interesting, but in the end they're probably trivial details. It's interesting though Eurytus how much significance you place on such detailed consistency in your assessments of movies. They seem to distract your attention but I would say that in The Matrix Reloaded at least I think there isn't any glaring hole that cannot be readily explained except those you look for with a magnifying glass.

Regarding your judgments on The Matrix Reloaded's morals you are again free to your opinion. But again why don't you seem to apply the same line of thinking to LotR's rather simplistic attitude towards orc cannon fodder? Furthermore doesn't The Matrix Reloaded's more disturbing handling of the expendable make it more complex and thought provoking than LotR's "safe" portrayal? As is probably clear, I think The Matrix Reloaded is being severely underrated.

 

[Eurytus]

Re your defence of the Burly Brawl by comparing it to Legolas killing the Mumakil.
Firstly I might point out that I did not particularly enjoy that part of ROTK, as I think the rest of my posts in this thread make clear I do not think that ROTK is anywhere near perfect.

However the big difference is that whilst I may not be keen on Legolas' bit at least it was over in about 60 seconds. The Burley Brawl in comparison went on for what seemed like eons. Far beyond the point where it was interesting, or novel, or served any plot device.
The sole point of that encounter between Neo and Smith is that Smith has changed and is tougher to beat. Such a point could have been conveyed solely by the attempted cloning of Neo and this would have had the added advantage that we could have avoided quarter of an hour of sub video game violence.

The comparisons you draw between Neo and Christ do not deal with the fact that there are fundamental differences between Neo at the end of the first movie and Neo in the 2nd. In the first movie Neo has attained a level of awareness and understanding of the matrix that make the physical rules of that world null and void to him. He is able to stop bullets, he can 'destroy' Smith without even throwing a punch. He is so powerful that the other agents turn tail and run. Simply put there is no indication that he needs Kung Fu any more. Why would he if he can stop bullets in mid air? You think he couldn't stop a kick in mid air too? Can you bend the rules of physics in the Matrix and yet somehow Kung Fu is immune to this?
Also, of course, Christ was never able to kick arse, or bend the rules of physics, or seem omnipotent. He may have been able to work miracles but those were almost exclusively for the benefit of others. There is never anything to give us reason to think that he would be able to get himself off the cross by kung fu or shooting fireballs or something.

And as an adult I can do more to better the world than when I was a kid, the fact that I don't is more to do with my laziness and lack of commitment to doing anything about it than any issues with self-determination.
But on a low level I can and do give money to charities which already does more good in the world than I was capable of as a child. I could volunteer to become an aid worker and do much more. I don't buy the Neo comparison at all.

I am not keen on the morals of LOTR but they are consistent with the world created by Tolkien. Yes a universely evil race is a bit of a cop out but it is important to note that the heroes do not mindlessly slaughter other human beings. Men who fight for Sauron may get killed but not beyond what is normal in warfare.

In the Matrix in comparison Neo and Co's blatant disregard for collatoral damage is highly disturbing. They perform acts that would not be out of place for Al Qaeda and we are supposed to cheer them for it.
I am not comfortable with a world in which "those who have not had their eyes opened" are free to be labelled the enemy and killed at will. I could think of religious cults and the like who might think similarly, or the Mansun 'family'.
But I wouldn't label them heroes or be expected to cheer their actions.

However for me the bottom line with Reloaded was that whatever you think of the deeper meaning behind it the fact remains that it wasn't a very good film. Every subsequent fight scene became more and more old hat, Trinity's fight with the agent was the only one that carried any element of danger, and the crowning moment of having philosophical uttering issued out to Neo by Colonel Sanders topped it all off nicely.

 

[kahnovitch]

Originally posted by Bond
Christ was the Son of God but he seemed helpless on the cross. Do you appreciate the paradox there? Perhaps you aren't Christian so how about just being a regular adult.

We all are "regular" adults Bond, i.e. opinionated, self-righteous, stubborn, set in our ways and can't be told anything by anyone.

As for Christ and Neo being comparable; okay they're both trying to save mankind, have risen from the dead, one is the son of God and one IS God it seems, but all similarity ends there really. One kills more people than Rambo and the other was a Martyr.

Originally posted by Bond
the competent intermixing of diverse philosophical commentary.

The what now?
Were we watching the same film because I really don't remember anything I could describe as "diverse philosophical commentary".

 

[Eurytus]

Originally posted by Bond
Furthermore doesn't The Matrix Reloaded's more disturbing handling of the expendable make it more complex and thought provoking than LotR's "safe" portrayal?

Forget to comment on this in my earlier post. I think you misunderstand me. Reloaded does not handle the expendable in a more disturbing way or, at least, that is not the intent that I see.

I said that I find their treatment of fellow human beings disturbing. They is nothing within the films to suggest that the filmakers feel this way. Indeed, they seem to find massacring hapless security guards rollicking good fun.

Ditto for killing the police.

I wonder. If there was a real life case of someone who believed that the whole world was an illusion controlled by machines (or indeed by the New World Order or Aliens from the planet Venus) and decided to perform acts of terrorism (blowing up power stations etc) in order to defeat their nefarious plot, killing innocents along the way......would he be applauded as a hero?

 

[Bond]

We all are "regular" adults Bond, i.e. opinionated, self-righteous, stubborn, set in our ways and can't be told anything by anyone.

It's a beautiful thing isn't it?

You refer though to my use of the phrase "regular adult" and I wonder if you missed my related argument pertaining to the movie that followed.

I'm not sure but perhaps our opinions diverge widely because of the different contexts we choose to view The Matrix Reloaded. You both seem to choose to see it only as an action film. I like that aspect a lot but also look past what you see as flaws because I see them as being consistent with The Matrix Reloaded's overall symbolic context.

All criticism directed against Neo for being too powerful I think displays an unwillingness or inability on the part of the critics to appreciate the metaphorical allusion being drawn not only of Neo as a Messiah figure but also of Neo as an ordinary man. Power isn't the problem; the problem as stated rather clearly and quite literally in the form of Smith is a lack of purpose. Mid-life crisis anyone? It is quite obvious Smith is the personification of purposelessness. The nature of this conflict between purpose and purposelessness is symbolically represented in Smith trying to clone Neo and the struggle's epic proportions are dramatized in the the Burly Brawl afterwards. The Burly Brawl is therefore not only eye candy, action scene, or simple plot device to show Smith as an enemy, it is thematically significant as well. It deserves the time alotted to it. Now what purpose does that scene with Legolas acting like Tarzan and that elephant serve again?

As stated by Reeves in an interview the first film is about Birth, the second about Life, the third about Death. Combine this all with basic philosophy ranging from Cartesian skepticism, gnosticism, naturalism, throw in a bit of Christological symbolism, nominalism, Kantian existentialism and probably a few other ideas on the side not to mention the wealth of pop cultural allusions and then cast in the form of a quest story and you've got a real matrix of ideas. What I find laudable is that the movies pull and weave these disparate ideas together quite well while simultaneously presenting an action extravaganza.

Uh, are you still with me?

 

[kahnovitch]

Originally posted by Bond
As stated by Reeves in an interview the first film is about Birth, the second about Life, the third about Death. Combine this all with basic philosophy ranging from Cartesian skepticism, gnosticism, naturalism, throw in a bit of Christological symbolism, nominalism, Kantian existentialism and probably a few other ideas on the side not to mention the wealth of pop cultural allusions and then form in the rubric of a quest story and you've got a real matrix of ideas. What I find laudable is that the movies pull and weave these disparate ideas together quite well while simultaneously presenting an action extravaganza.

Uh, are you still with me?

NO WAY DUDE!
Reeves said all that!
I don't know what the heck he was smoking? (Possibly a thesaurus or Encyclopedia Britannica), but those are some mightily impressive words.
(I'm no stranger to sarcasm either )

But like the movie, they amount to sweet FA to me.
Do I need a degree in existential philosophy to understand the deeper meanings in the film? Or are some people merely trying to justify what was a empty meaningless film with even emptier words?
I wanted to like the film, I TRIED to like the film, but it just seemed to me like they had totally lost the plot, and if those things you say are true, then you, dear chap, are the only person I know in existence, who is aware of them.

 

[Eurytus]

Originally posted by Bond

Mid-life crisis anyone?

Oh, so it was American Beauty with Kung Fu then?
Er, great.
Did I miss Kevin Spacey?

Uh, are you still with me?

I just love the way Reloaded supporters can't wait to play the "you're to stupid to appreciate it" card.

You can shoehorn all the faux philosophy into a film you want but if you want anyone to care you had first better make sure that the film is actually good.

 

[Bond]

I just love the way Reloaded supporters can't wait to play the "you're to stupid to appreciate it" card.

You can shoehorn all the faux philosophy into a film you want but if you want anyone to care you had first better make sure that the film is actually good.

As much as I love Reloaded's detractors' predictable expostulations of "pseudo philosophy" I'm sure. What do they teach in your class of Philo 101 I wonder?

The film was good? Nah, it was great!

 

[Eurytus]

Well the first thing I learnt is that crappy philosophies do not a good work of fiction make. Call it the Goodkind law of total bollocks.

But the philosophy is only one element of the cacophony of elements that ruin the film.

We have the philosophy itself and enough has been said about that.

We have the totally meaningless, weight free, danger free fight scenes that seem to not know the meaning of the words "to outstay one's welcome".

We have the Zion rave (no elaboration needed)

We have Morpheus's increasingly self-parodying performance. I particularly liked his totally overwrought, "Zion, here me".

We have a load of new characters who have varying faults.
Merovogian (I don't apologise for the doubtless spelling error). His only function appears to be to talk stand out total bollocks (and its quite an achievement to speak stand out bollocks in a film thats chock a block of the standard variety) and to initiate a rather tasteless scene wherein an orgasm is crossed with Tron.

We have the Twins. Two of the most unfrightening villains in living memory. And as for their attempts at humour.....
We are getting irritated.....you and me both pal.
Truly dialogue from the Lucas school of writing.

We have Tank's replacement. Thought Tank was relatively anonomous in the first film? Well now you can see that this was a benefit cos this guy is also tragically unfunny.

We have the character of the Kid. Well words fail me here.

And we have all the morally troubling elements I mentioned earlier.

So to summarise we have;

Action sequences that have no element of danger (save the Trinity, Agent fight)

Heroes that frankly only a psycho could root for.

Philosophy that might impress a troubled teenager with its odes to the concept of choice.

Special Effects that are often comically poor. Keanu's coat. Nuff said.

Oh yeah, and before I forget, it had Keanu Reeves. Nail in the coffin.

 

[Eurytus]

Originally posted by Bond

What I find laudable is that the movies pull and weave these disparate ideas together quite well while simultaneously presenting an action extravaganza.

That the public loved so much that the business almost halved for Revolutions. Sounds like a lot of people felt cheated to me.

 

[Bond]

That the public loved so much that the business almost halved for Revolutions. Sounds like a lot of people felt cheated to me.

So after your litany of negative opinion you still feel it necessary to back yourself up with a box office popularity argument? I guess the stretch in some of your assertions is plain to you too. Well as long as you think that that's what makes the likes of Spiderman and Titanic the greatest of movies go right ahead. Although how you reconcile your logic here with your stand that FotR is the best of the LotR trilogy then comes into question.

No matter, I'll appreciate the Merovingian's wit while you rave over Gandalf's and Aragorn's bland speechifying. True when it comes to speechifying, as banal as Aragorn's pep talk is, I must admit it is slightly better than Morpheus' sorry Temple address. Nevertheless even that slip isn't enough to make Morpheus less interesting than the insipidly generic Gandalf and Aragorn. Morpheus even in caricature is more of an icon.

But this is all opinion. Feel free to think the Merovingian is spouting bollocks while I chuckle at the astute humorous insight he sheds on the human condition and admire the clever way the entire situation is constructed to metaphorically illustrate the wisdom of religion, the weakness of vice, and the propensity of vice to backfire. The episode was a wonderfully efficient morality lesson. I wonder how many appreciate that scene in that way.

 

[Evil Agent]

I don't want to get too involved in endless debate, but BOTH sides are making good points...

Bond, you seem to see the movie in a less cynical way, appreciating it for a fabulously entertaining Sci-Fi epic, with awesome fights, cool effects, decent story, and a sprinkling of philosophy. I agree with that.

Eurytus, the point you make that I agree with most is that of the killing of innocent by-standers.. I've been wondering about that one ever since the FIRST film, in the final scene where they shoot up all those security guards in the building that Morpheus is being kept... I couldn't believe it, especially since they never really discussed it amongst themselves, they just started killing!!!

Anyway, I enjoy the films, and I like Keanu (although I'm probably in the minority).

 

[Eurytus]

Originally posted by Bond

So after your litany of negative opinion you still feel it necessary to back yourself up with a box office popularity argument? I guess the stretch in some of your assertions is plain to you too. Well as long as you think that that's what makes the likes of Spiderman and Titanic the greatest of movies go right ahead. Although how you reconcile your logic here with your stand that FotR is the best of the LotR trilogy then comes into question.

Although of course I never did make that argument did I. Keep your usual paper tiger arguments coming Bond. Wouldn't like to think you'd change your methods.

Originally posted by Bond
No matter, I'll appreciate the Merovingian's wit while you rave over Gandalf's and Aragorn's bland speechifying. True when it comes to speechifying, as banal as Aragorn's pep talk is, I must admit it is slightly better than Morpheus' sorry Temple address. Nevertheless even that slip isn't enough to make Morpheus less interesting than the insipidly generic Gandalf and Aragorn. Morpheus even in caricature is more of an icon.

Here we see another example of Bond's paper tiger debating method.
Now this debate started in the ROTK Oscar thread within which I was the only one arguing that there were negative aspects to ROTK.
And yet here we see that Bond has decided to turn it into a ROTK versus Reloaded argument. Why has he done this? Because he likes to argue about LOTR of course. He thinks it makes him sound like a member of a higher elite who is able to see the flaws in a popular work.
Of course the fact that I was never comparing Gandalf's and Aragorn's "speechifying" favourably to those in the Matrix films makes the whole thing a bit of a waste of time.
But there you go.

Originally posted by Bond
But this is all opinion. Feel free to think the Merovingian is spouting bollocks while I chuckle at the astute humorous insight he sheds on the human condition and admire the clever way the entire situation is constructed to metaphorically illustrate the wisdom of religion, the weakness of vice, and the propensity of vice to backfire.

It would appear that the Merovingian is not the only person able to spout bollocks.

I can see where the admiration fits in now.

 

[Bond]

I make observations and comparisons and discuss them. Eurytus, since you were the one making most of the arguments, I responded to most of your analysis. You may make your own judgments as to why I discuss movies. I think I do so to understand movies, books, or whatever else better. If that means taking a more solid stand on certain matters I do so. Discussion and argument from such a position I find more edifying. If taking a stronger stand seems to make me more elitist as a consequence than so be it. It is not my intention. However, the value of all this does presume the discussion centers around the movie or book. From your last comments it seems that is not your interest.

Which is a shame since considering the volume of words you've used on the subjects I presumed you were open to a discussion or debate on the merits of the movies. Given your prickliness I guess I was mistaken. I should have learned from our previous "discussion". If I was wrong when I implied that you liked Gandalf's and Aragorn's speechifying and you take offense at that then I am truly sorry. If you actually enjoyed their speechifying, however, you are being disingenuous and deserve rebuke. But I think we already have an idea which is closer to the truth. Don't think your attempts to misdirect the discussion by charging me of creating "paper tigers" and "spouting bollocks" strikes anyone as anything but a fig leaf for your lack of anything meaningful to say on the subject.

One more thing, you are not the only one I make my comments to. So I suggest in the future that if you are unwilling or unable to intelligently respond to my comments on the movie or book at hand, then you should just ignore my comments.

 

[fluffy bunny]

Sigh- hate to do it but...

Mod warning

Please can we keep the personal insults to a minimum. We're meant to be discussing films here. It's great that people are passionate about the subject, but personal attacks just put other people off posting and would give me no choice but to close the thread (which would be a shame as there have been some great points raised so far).

-------------------

Anyway, back to the topic, personally, I didn't enjoy films 2&3 despite loving the first one. True, there are a lot of biblical and greek references in the Martix, but IMHO, they're not presented very clearly during films 2&3 (as a pose to the relatively simple 'reality is a dream' from film 1), I got the feeling that the writers were torn as to which way to go with them, so bunged in as many as possible, leaving the viewer to selectively interpret the film.

 

[kahnovitch]

Re: Sigh- hate to do it but...

Originally posted by fluffy bunny
I got the feeling that the writers were torn as to which way to go with them, so bunged in as many as possible, leaving the viewer to selectively interpret the film.

Yeah, it's a shame when they deliberately leave something anbiguous and merely add more uncertainty to the film than they clear up.
In the first film they had established Neo as "The One"
His final confrontation with Smith and the other agents showed his ressurection and new found power of destroying an agent completely (or so we thought) and freezing bullets etc.
At the end he shows us his ultimate power with a superman stunt.
Right, Fine. Neo's got it sussed in the Matrix and can "change it as he sees fit" to quote Morpheus.
In the second film, after establishing Neo as "The One" his abilities are now being questioned and we have to go through the whole "is he really "The One"" scenario again.
The story now takes a step backwards so Neo may just be a very gifted man, but not the saviour
Smith is back and now running around creating copies of himself.
Don't know why, he just been "freed" by Neo and decides that he wants to individually destroy him but simply multiplying and defeating him with weight of numbers.
Why Neo still resorts to kung-fu is beyond any logic. Perhaps his powers are limited by his imagination and he can only think as far as "Hey! Superman is the ultimate super-dude. I'll be like him."
Stretch your imagination a bit Neo! Bullets bounce off Superman as well you know and he has heat vision and other stuff too!
(Neo obviously didn't read enough comics when he was a kid)

Now the Oracle, despite being the child-minder of all the gifted potential ones, is suddenly just a program who said of Morpheus in the first film, "We'd be lost without him."
WE!?
She's a program, why should she even care? Without the Matrix she ceases to exist.
The Architect was hilarious for me, confusing poor Neo even further by trying to make him doubt himself even further.
I've watched the film once and avoided the 3rd on the good advice and response of other members who know my taste, but I'll see them both at some point again if only to reassure myself it was as bad as I thought it was.

 

[Eurytus]

Bond, if you want an exact description of how you like to use the “paper tiger” arguing method then I will indicate it below;

“What I find laudable is that the movies pull and weave these disparate ideas together quite well while simultaneously presenting an action extravaganza.”

You made the point that you thought the movies had been successful in weaving together the philosophy whilst presenting an “action extravaganza”.

I replied thus;

“That the public loved so much that the business almost halved for Revolutions. Sounds like a lot of people felt cheated to me.”

Indicating that the fact that the box office dropped by nearly half for, what was effectively, the second half of one movie. This would indicate that many of the people who went to see Reloaded were left unimpressed enough by it to not go and see Revolutions for the completion of the story. Notice that I did not use this to debate the films quality per se but merely the public perception on the film’s quality (and successful welding of philosophy and Kung Fu) as indicated by the extreme drop off in box office figures.
Now to me there is nothing controversial in any of that. It would seem to be a fact that Revolutions was far less successful than Reloaded and I would also expect, far less successful than the film-makers hoped.

But you decided to respond thus;

“So after your litany of negative opinion you still feel it necessary to back yourself up with a box office popularity argument? I guess the stretch in some of your assertions is plain to you too. Well as long as you think that that's what makes the likes of Spiderman and Titanic the greatest of movies go right ahead. Although how you reconcile your logic here with your stand that FotR is the best of the LotR trilogy then comes into question.”

In doing so you ignored all my specific criticisms of Reloaded throughout the thread (which is curious given your eagerness to lambast me for supposedly NOT discussing the films merits or lack thereof “Which is a shame since considering the volume of words you've used on the subjects I presumed you were open to a discussion or debate on the merits of the movies. Given your prickliness I guess I was mistaken.”). A clear case of kettle calling the pot black I believe.

Additionally, and in regard to your statement above, we can see the paper tiger effect coming into play. You claim that I have been making the “box office indicates which are the greatest movies” argument.
But of course I never did. As already indicated I stated that the fact that the 2nd half of a two part film suffered an almost 50% drop in box office would appear to indicate that many of the public were not so enamoured of it as you seem to be. Simple interpretation of the facts I would think.
Did I use the box office to indicate the film’s quality? No. I used it to indicate the public’s perception of the films quality. An important distinction.
The fact that you used the Titanic argument makes this paper tiger even more tired. Nowhere in my post was there anything to indicate that I believed top box office equals top movie. But top box office does indicate that the public loves the movie. Something that Titanic haters will have to deal with and get bitter over for many years to come I fear. Unfortunately for them Titanic was extremely popular and for many people, at that time, it was their favourite movie. And all the bitching about it in the world does not change this.

But of course this is merely a distraction since I never made the box office equals quality argument in the first place (which also makes your argument about how I can justify FOTR as the best of the LOTR trilogy totally inconsequential).
I did make the box office indicates the public’s perception of a movie argument and this is one I stand by. Simply put, if people pay to see a movie this indicates that they perceive it as good. If half of the people who paid to see part 2 pay to see part 3 it indicates that there has been a significant drop in the perceived quality.





And it is you who is being disingenuous about Paper Tigers. Your Aragorn/Gandalf speechifying response is a clear case in point. Let’s take a look at your latest quote;

“If I was wrong when I implied that you liked Gandalf's and Aragorn's speechifying and you take offense at that then I am truly sorry. If you actually enjoyed their speechifying, however, you are being disingenuous and deserve rebuke. But I think we already have an idea which is closer to the truth.”

Now lets break it down into the 3 separate sentences, because there are problems to be found in each of them.

Sentence 1. - If I was wrong when I implied that you liked Gandalf's and Aragorn's speechifying and you take offense at that then I am truly sorry.

Now on the surface this seems reasonable. It seems a genuine (if exaggerated) apology. But a closer look at both it and what follows indicates that it is less than sincere and is merely used as a foil to set up further criticism.
The problem is that the post you initially made (and the creation of your paper tiger) was this;

“No matter, I'll appreciate the Merovingian's wit while you rave over Gandalf's and Aragorn's bland speechifying.”

Now of course I will leave it up to the observer to decide whether to state I was raving over Gandalf’s and Aragorn’s blank speechifying is now, somehow only an implication. I would say that it clearly is not implied here so much as flat out stated that I “raved” and that to try and revise this statement back to it being only an “implication” is a feat of revision that Comrade Stalin would be proud of.

Here is the crux of the paper tiger argument that Bond has used. In order to defend his fondness for the dialogue in Reloaded he states that he will enjoy that whilst I rave over the LOTR dialogue. This is a paper-tiger argument because;

1. I have never “raved” over the LOTR dialogue.
2. I was not even using the LOTR dialogue as a favourable comparison to Reloaded.

The combination of these points makes Bond’s original statement a paper tiger, assigning to me a false position so that he can open up another LOTR versus (insert name here) debate. Something he seems to like to engineer seemingly.

So I think it’s pretty clear there are issues with the first sentence.

Sentence 2. - If you actually enjoyed their speechifying, however, you are being disingenuous and deserve rebuke.

Here’s where we see that the apology was not really such. This will be especially apparent when combined with sentence 3.
Now Bond states that even if I did not say it, if I actually did enjoy their speechifying then I am being disingenuous and deserve rebuke. Besides being pompous as usual this is also plain wrong.
Disingenuous, to be insincere, to be a hypocrite, to be dishonest. All meanings of Disingenuous. Which was I being?

Given that Bond stated; “while you rave over Gandalf's and Aragorn's bland speechifying”

And I replied, “Of course the fact that I was never comparing Gandalf's and Aragorn's "speechifying" favourably to those in the Matrix films makes the whole thing a bit of a waste of time.”

So Bond stated I had raved over it and I corrected him to say that;

A. I hadn’t. Anywhere. Period.
B. I also had not compared the dialogue in LOTR favourably to Reloaded in any way and therefore he was wasting his time assigning statements to me that I had never made.

In that context it would be hard to see where I was being dishonest, or a hypocrite, or insincere, or indeed disingenuous. Indeed my reply to his falsehood was 100% truthful so its hard to see how dishonesty even comes into the equation.
But let’s assume for an instant that I did, indeed “rave over” the dialogue in LOTR (which I in fact don’t, the dialogue is largely only OK but that’s by the by), this still wouldn’t make me insincere, dishonest or any of the rest of it.
Why? Because in summary Bond accused me of raving of something and I hadn’t.
In simple terms his statement is false. False and out of place.
I think it is clear who is being disingenuous here. Changing “you race over” to “if I implied” etc.

The bottom line is that your statement was a false statement, wrongly assigning to me a position that I did not in fact hold and certainly had never introduced into the debate for reasons best known to yourself. To then attempt to portray me as being disingenuous when I corrected you on it is ludicrous.

Sentence 3. - But I think we already have an idea which is closer to the truth.

Here we have the nice sting in the tail. After trying to amend what he has actually said to making it only an implication when it was a flat out mistruth. After suggesting that I was being disingenuous if I actually did like the dialogue in LOTR and deserved rebuke (still funny).
Now you tie it all together by giving everyone the impression that WE (the royal We presumably unless you have some kind of psychic link with other board members) have an idea of which is closer to the truth. To me this indicates that you believe I do like the dialogue in LOTR, which means I was being disingenuous and now deserve rebuke.

Unfortunately for you, this is a false assumption, based on an erroneous definition of what it would require for me to be disingenuous, itself based on a falsehood that started it all off.

It would be humorous if it was not such a blatant attempt to gain some sort of moral superiority.

And here I thought we were discussing movies……

For the record every criticism of the film I have said is contained in the thread it’s just a pity that Bond has chosen to ignore the bulk of them and instead misinterpret my statements to set up his own arguments that he can win.
Should have known I guess.

And now if anyone else wants to actually discuss the movie with me without bending my words to fit their purposes I am more than happy to oblige.

 

[Eurytus]

fluffy bunny, my apologies, I am presently somewhere with extremely intermittent internet access and so did not see your appeal to get back on track.

Therefore I will, although I do stand by everything I said in my prior post.

As I have said before my biggest problem with Reloaded is the worrying morals it displays and as Kahnovitch points out above, the lack of imagination, which is a surprise for a Sci-fi flick.

Once Neo had discovered that the Matrix was fake the limits to what he could achieve should only have been governed by his imagination. And frankly on the evidence of Reloaded he did not have any.
They could have done and shown anything in Reloaded.
What a pity they didn't.

 

[Bond]

Such a long post Eurytus to say that I am preemptively and unfairly judging you. It is possible I have made some wrong inferences, but let's cut to the chase. It should be easy to clear up with a few questions. Do you think The Matrix Reloaded is of good quality? Did I offend you by understanding your appreciation of the quality of The Matrix Reloaded is less than what it is? Am I really assigning to you a false position? If not, a large portion of your protestations would seem silly such as the following:

Did I use the box office to indicate the film’s quality? No. I used it to indicate the public’s perception of the films quality. An important distinction.

If your argument is that the film's quality is bad and that the public's perception of the film's quality is bad, this "important distinction" you talk about is made irrelevant.

The same with my comments about the speechifying in LotR and your appreciation of them. Did you like it? Was I right in thinking you prefer the dialogue in LotR to that in Reloaded? If yes, why then all this feigned injury at what would be a correct assumption on my part?

Save us the pretense. If there is anyone that should be complaining about "paper tigers" it is I.

Now moving away from your discussion methods, and instead looking at your arguments regarding the movie, since the majority of them seem to be of the "Oh yeah, and before I forget, it had Keanu Reeves. Nail in the coffin" variety, I have difficulty taking them seriously. The logic is similar to someone saying Analyze This 2 is a good movie because it had Robert De Niro in it. Doesn't fly with me. It also allows for the prejudging of a film. One wonders why the prospective watcher thinking this doesn't just turn tail when Keanu's name appears on the marquee. Given these reasons I thought the kettle was empty, to borrow your analogy.


------------------------------

Kahnovitch, I think a lot of your arguments can be explained satisfactorily. First of all how are we supposed to know what powers Neo has? You mention what Morpheus says--but how does he know? Using an analogy to Jesus Christ, many thought the long sought Messiah was going to be a great military leader not a spiritual figure. I think it is perfectly fine to let the filmmakers within certain bounds determine exactly what powers Neo has.

As is pointed out quite often, what Neo did to Smith before seems to have made him stronger so why would Neo use that same tactic again? Moreover, it is perhaps more important to look at the fights not in their literal sense but in their figurative sense. As I said before the Matrix trilogy can be seen as representing the stages of one's life and Neo a person in each of those stages. Smith in the first movie is like the boogey man of one's childhood haunting the dark crevices of one's bedroom or more sophisticatedly the insecurities of one's adolescense. Growing older, wiser, and more familiar with the world, one learns to handle and dispel such fears. So much so that after proper training one becomes an idealistic youth who thinks he can take on the world. End of first movie.

Of course we should know what happens after that. The daily grind sets in, doubts arise, metaphysical questions such as "What are we here for?" and "What is our purpose?" become more prominant mimicked in the movie by the dilemma besetting Neo. Smith who was vanquished by the vigor of youth comes back to haunt the older wiser adult in his middle years as a sense of purposelessness. That's what I think the fights in the movie are for. They are representations of the fights each of us face against our doubts, insecurities, and temptations. I think it no accident that the Oracle (personification of religion) is the one in the movie that warns against the various monsters (personal demons if you will) of the Matrix that Neo eventually ends up fighting.

The Matrix movies more than most movies are made with a figurative interpretation and I think it is necessary to take note of that to fully appreciate them. I take it as a true heir to works such as The Divine Comedy, Gulliver's Travels, The Little Prince, or Alice in Wonderland. I hope this perspective enriches your appreciation of the movies when you see them next. The dialogue for one makes much more sense. True it still may not be terribly deep but the accomplishment with it as with the other parts of the movie is in the way it manages to work on more than just one level.

 

[Eurytus]

Oh, I think we can indeed cut to the chase. Did you or did you not state that I held (and in fact stated) two opinions which I;

a. Do not hold
b. Never stated

Rather than play the semantics game I think you would be better served if you just came clean and admitted that you got it wrong. And furthermore than you then tried to suggest that I was being disingenuous by calling you out on it. Not that I expect you to, but then that would be par for the course judging by our previous “discussions”.

If your argument is that the film's quality is bad and that the public's perception of the film's quality is bad, this "important distinction" you talk about is made irrelevant.

Can you get it any more wrong? Is my argument that the film’s quality is bad?
No. My argument is that I think it is bad. (unlike yourself I am aware that my opinion is not fact)
My argument is also that enough of the public who went to see part 2 did not like it enough (i.e. it did not reach a sufficient quality) for them to go and see part 3.

Given that you accused me of using a film’s box office to dictate it’s artistic quality, throwing in some spurious Titanic references along the way, then it is quite clear that you are wrong.

Let’s take the next one;

The same with my comments about the speechifying in LotR and your appreciation of them. Did you like it?

Not all of it no.

Was I right in thinking you prefer the dialogue in LotR to that in Reloaded?

Yes. Not difficult. I prefer the dialogue in a myriad of films to that in Reloaded. Unfortunately though the fact that I prefer LOTR’s dialogue has nothing to do with the fact that you ascribed a false position to me.

If yes, why then all this feigned injury at what would be a correct assumption on my part?

Erm, perhaps that is because you wrongly stated that I had “raved about the speechifying in LOTR”.
Let’s be clear. It is not a correct assumption on your part because I do not “rave about the speechifying”. Therefore you are wrong.
You compounded your error by trying to revise your statement to attempt to make it appear as it being the case that you only “implied I liked it”. And you suggested I was being disingenuous and dishonest by calling you on your mistake.
Bullshit. You said that I rave about the speechifying. I don’t. Admit you error and be done with it.

Now moving away from your discussion methods, and instead looking at your arguments regarding the movie, since the majority of them seem to be of the "Oh yeah, and before I forget, it had Keanu Reeves. Nail in the coffin" variety, I have difficulty taking them seriously

Doubtless it would be hard to take them seriously if you were actually correct. Unfortunately (and somewhat predictably) you are wrong. The majority of my complaints have been about the flaws in logic, poor dialogue, bullshit philosophy, endless and pointless fight scenes, Zion rave, poor characters and lack of imagination.

ONE of my complaints is about Keanu Reeves. Therefore to call them a majority is as factually incorrect as most of your posts and I find your inability to deal with my other complaints by fixating on one, (and one you incidentally could not refute, given that his performance is piss poor) very interesting.