Re: OT: art and language and THE DAVINCI CODE

From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
Subject: Re: OT: Re: art and language and THE DAVINCI CODE


> Andreas Johansson wrote at 2003-06-02 23:00:35 (+0200)
>  > Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:
>  >
>  > > Similarly, to this day I don't understand all the fuss over "The
>  > > Matrix".  Great visual effects, impressive action sequences,
>  > > laughably silly premise, passable acting and writing - enjoyable,
>  > > but hardly "the thinking person's science fiction movie", as I
>  > > heard it touted repeatedly.
>  >
>  > The Matrix may very possibly have the worst plot of any movie I've
>  > seen. "The thinking person's SF movie"? Armagedon (sp?) makes more
>  > sense ...
>  >
>
> I don't agree to that.  It's certainly not "The thinking person's
> science fiction movie", but it does contain a lot of references to
> various questions of philosophy.  Maybe "The not-particularly-thinking
> person who would nonetheless enjoy a palatable introduction to certain
> deep thoughts's blockbuster action movie".
>
> Really, I'd have quite liked it if they'd just understood that humans
> are not net energy sources.
I still maintain (having not seen the second Matrix movie) that the
robots/AI put humans into the Matrix to defend them from their own
destructive behavior, following the first law of robotics (or the zeroth).
As Agent Smith said, the first attempt at the Matrix was a perfect, paradise
sort of world, where the humans could be happy.  When it didn't work, they
resorted to a simulation of a world that they already knew to be viable.
When a few humans started shooting up the Matrix and killing other humans,
the robots made the agents to go and stop them, defending the rest of
humanity.

It was Morpheus who claimed that humans were a source of energy, and he
certainly didn't understand the whole picture.  Perhaps the robots used
people for a small amount of energy just on the side.  But the real reason
people were in the Matrix at all was for their protection.

Replies