Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 2000177" data-attributes="member: 3929">Ah. Well there we are. Sure, for a metaphor to be made in the first place, there needs be no "premises", or backstory. Red = Psycological state is a good example of that. But my contention is that when you have an metaphor like you have in the Matrix sequels, the backstory will either enhance or detract from the aptness of the metaphor. "Red" as a metaphor has no backstory, and so it stands alone, for good or ill. But the world of the Matrix could not escape a backstory, and when that backstory turned out to be drek, the effacasy of the metaphor lessens. The metaphor might still be apt, there might still be paralells, but the worse the backstory support is, the less merit I'm going to give to the thrust of the movie.That's why I applied a logic premise-conclusion structure to the Matrix; sure, the metaphor does not spring directly from the backstory, but the backstory must support the world in which the metaphor takes place. If the backstory falls, the world falls. If the world falls, then the metaphor is left alone, naked in the dark as it were.These guys have their backstory made easy... it's set in Earth in the present. So everything there is ready-made. The W-Brothers had 200-some odd years or whatever to fill in, and that's where they blew it.---I guess I just don't want to see a metaphor in a vaccum; it should be judged by what surrounds it and supports it as well, because all the elements that surround the metaphor are chosen by the artist, and he'd better bloody well choose wisely. If the metaphor is the point the artist is trying to make, then like in any argument, that point should be supported well.Maybe we just differ on wether or not the metaphor should stand alone. I don't think it should.</blockquote>

Verification