The stupidest movie ever!

[Rackhir]

Here's one answer: its metaphoric. The robots are stand-ins for (disenfranchised) peoples, 'robot slavery/racism' = 'real slavery/racism'. Plus, its a thought experiment. How will we treat the ulitimate Others --say robots or aliens? Like we did to our fellow human beings?

It doesn't make literal sense, but that isn't the point.

And while I too have problems accepting sentient toasters in SF, the question 'How can we be so stupid' can be asked of many real human endeavors. Consider our nuclear weapon stockpiles...

Yes, I got the metaphorical aspects of the story, but being metephorical doesn't excuse you from making sense. If you simply want to club people over the head with some ham handed moral point, then don't try and pretend it makes any sense. There is a fundamental difference between enslaving something that IS already sentient and building something to be sentient and a slave. In the first case you can't control the sentience of the slave. In the second you can and sentience is a serious liability in a disposable item.

It's one of the reasons why slavery has tended to go away in technological societies. Slaves make very poor workers in jobs where motivation, skill, imagination and education are important. It's estimated that the Germans lost more production than they gained by using slave labor in WW2 especially in places like the V2 factories.

People may do many stupid things, but however stupid they are, there are at least reasons to explain why they are done. Making disposable sentient machines does not have even this level of support.

 

[Storm Raven]

And while I too have problems accepting sentient toasters in SF, the question 'How can we be so stupid' can be asked of many real human endeavors. Consider our nuclear weapon stockpiles...

And yet there are logical reasons for the creation of nuclear weapon stockpiles. And no logical reasons one can give for making sentient toasters.

 

[Mallus]

but being metephorical doesn't excuse you from making sense.

Yes, it does. Or least its changes the criteria by which you judge something. You ask "How apt is this"? Or "How subtle"? You're asking too much to require a metaphor (particular in a fabulist work) to make literal/logical sense.

Should a viewer get caught up in the biological plausbility of giant space seed pods (capable of perfectly duplicating human beings), or just accept the conceit in Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

Judging an allegory (however crude) the same way you'd judge a work of extrapolation seems wrongheaded.

If you simply want to club people over the head with some ham handed moral point

I didn't say it was a good metaphor...

, then don't try and pretend it makes any sense.

This is SF we're talking about, right? A lot of SF proudly features lengthy, elaborate explanations of technologies that are way cool (like powered armor, cyborg assasins and forcefield encased space battlehsips) and don't make a lick of sense, except as dramatiztions of adolescent male techno-power fantasies (and to any SF authors reading this: please keep them coming).

Part of the joy of SF (for me) is in its frequent, passionate application of logic to the illogical.

 

[Rackhir]

Yes, it does. Or least its changes the criteria by which you judge something. You ask "How apt is this"? Or "How subtle"? You're asking too much to require a metaphor (particular in a fabulist work) to make literal/logical sense.

Should a viewer get caught up in the biological plausbility of giant space seed pods (capable of perfectly duplicating human beings), or just accept the conceit in Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

Judging an allegory (however crude) the same way you'd judge a work of extrapolation seems wrongheaded

This is SF we're talking about, right? A lot of SF proudly features lengthy, elaborate explanations of technologies that are way cool (like powered armor, cyborg assasins and forcefield encased space battlehsips) and don't make a lick of sense, except as dramatiztions of adolescent male techno-power fantasies (and to any SF authors reading this: please keep them coming).

Part of the joy of SF (for me) is in its frequent, passionate application of logic to the illogical.

I think you are misunderstanding the role of such "story elements". They are essentially like spices, they give a story it's flavor and feel. So you forgive and suspend disbelief, with regards to such things.

The story however is the meat of the matter and if it's rotten, there better be some dammed good spices if you want to cover up the awfulness of the meal. I'm not objecting to there being AI's, you don't have a story without the AI's. I'm objecting to the stupid way that they have used them in the story.

There was absolutely no reason given WHY these disposable robots were given sentience. Their AI seemed to be there solely for the purpose of enabling them to suffer, so that there would be a "Slave" metaphor going on with regards to how they were treated. Many sceens were there for the sole purpose of showing how "Human" the AI's were. A prime example of this was when they were being used to construct a pyramid in exactly the same fashion that we've seen in every Moses epic ever filmed. That's stupid, disposable slaves or not, you'd be using large powered machinery because it does that sort of work much more quickly and efficiently.

So if there is no logical reason for doing things that way, there must be some emotional purpose then. They could have for example said that they were given sentience precisely for the purpose of making them suffer, because with suffering among mankind having been wiped out there was some dark need being left unfulfiled in mankind's psychie, with regards to inflicting pain. So that while making humans suffer was "intolerable", AI's weren't regarded as having "real sentience". That is at least a REASON why they were given sentience and that would still worked with regards to their "metaphor".

What they did was simply bad writing and bad storytelling. No amount of metaphor, especially if you are trying to pretend the story makes some kind of sense can justify that. Trying to make a point, never justifies bad writing. If you simply want to make ham handed moral points then write satire.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

I found them neither entertaining as pure action flicks (because most of the action was just ridiculously stupid (with few exceptions mostly from 2)) and I neither liked what they turned the story into.

I think it was exactly the philosophy part that ruined them completely.

Except it was the "philosophy part" that was the entire point of the movies... and if you didn't get it, that's not the fault of the directors. I got it.

Then again, as one of my friends told me, "you're a goth, libertarian, extropian political philosophy student who is into martial arts, the occult, and DJing techno music... the Matrix trilogy was practically written FOR YOU..." So yeah, of course I'd defend it tooth and nail...

 

[Mallus]

I think you are misunderstanding the role of such "story elements". They are essentially like spices, they give a story it's flavor and feel.

The story however is the meat of the matter and if it's rotten

No, its just that I don't automatically assume "story" has primacy; maybe theme, motif, characterization, or even mood does. I let the work in question tell me what's most important. Whole genres of film don't hold story central; film noir (even it the best of them, their plots are hash, its a practically a genre convention), Italian horror (look at Dario Argento, he puts lurid lighting and set design ahead of story) etc.

You might not not like films like that, but you really can't say story is always 'the meat of the matter'.

 

[Rackhir]

No, its just that I don't automatically assume "story" has primacy; maybe theme, motif, characterization, or even mood does. I let the work in question tell me what's most important. Whole genres of film don't hold story central; film noir (even it the best of them, their plots are hash, its a practically a genre convention), Italian horror (look at Dario Argento, he puts lurid lighting and set design ahead of story) etc.

You might not not like films like that, but you really can't say story is always 'the meat of the matter'.

Actually, I like film noir and Dario Argento movies very much. Of course some are better than others because of the plots...

Pratically everything you mention above are stylistic elements "Spices". While some Film Noir, may have lousy plots I doubt those are considered among the classics of the genre. There's certainly nothing wrong with the plot of the "Maltese Falcon" or "Double Indemnity" Unless you are talking about something that is simply intended as a mood piece like perhaps "Clouds" from the anime "Robot Carnival", movies are telling a story. Without a good story, you don't have a good movie. You might really enjoy some of the "spices" but it doesn't make up for the rot at the core. I'll conceed this much, you can still ruin a good story with lousy "Spices".

 

[Felix]

Rackhir v Mallus

I'd like to chime in that while they have great special effects and push the envelope of computer animation, PIXAR studios has not made 6 great movies only because of that. Each of those movies have had solid, simple, endearing stories to clothe in special effects.

LOTR did the same; the story was there, and it was well executed.

Troy had an epic story (how long has that poem been around) and yet it felt hacked, rushed, and Hollywoodized. That's what production quality can do to a good plot.

But when you have a huge hole in the story that isn't explained, then the point the metaphor is trying to make is weakened. Just as in a symbolic logic mapping of an argument, if the premisies are weak or flawed, then the conclusion will be as well. That's the problem with robot sentience in the Matrix sequels.

I, Robot did robot sentience better; there was a progression of thought in the mainframe AI that led it to the decision to take over the world, and I think that's what Rackhir wants from the Matrix stuff. Humans won't give away sentience on purpose, at least not without building failsafes.

And speaking of sentience/robot control/failsafes... can you say that for as technologically proficient as the humans were in the Matrix world they couldn't figure out how to create Blade Runner-esque replicants that weren't even aware of themselves as non-human?


This is turning into something like a rant...


And so EMPs are used safely on the ships. Well done. That's one of the reasons the first Matrix was such a hit... it was "our only weapon against the machines". And as soon as the machines show up at Zion they start throwing small bits of metal at them very quickly?

And then there's Neo. He can stop a sentinel in the real world. How? Because he has a connection to the source. Wait, what? Say that again. "A connection to the source." WTF, mate? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sorry, no time now, the conversation on screen has moved to some other topic. GAH! WORST HANDWAVING EVER. I mean it could have been so cool if there were some kind of reason that made sense for Neo's Shocking Grasp abilities. Something! But a connection to the friggin SOURCE???

And then all of a sudden, he's King Arthur. Bwa? Yeah, a King Arthur that completely failed to rescue all of those folks that are currently serving as Double-A batteries! Actually didn't Agent Smith pretty much wipe out humanity when he took over the matrix, and then Neo killed him by letting the squiddyfather kill him? Ok, great... no batteries for the robots. Good, they die. They seem to be pretty happy about it. And so what are we left with? A bunch of humans in a cave that look like extras from the Smells Like Teen Spirit video who can't figure out how to build a proper loom, and who can't put together the simple fact that small bits of metal arn't going to help all that much against the Horde of Metal coming at them.

Oh yeah, and remember that cute little Indian girl from the subway? Yeah, she's friggin Helios or something. So had she not been doing her job all along when she was elsewhere with her folks? Or is she just getting started at her new job? Gah! It's just so fraggin dripping with meaning! Can't you see??? Because of Neo she was able to make the sun rise like it's been doing for the last dozen centuries...

Bad, bad, bad, bad. I don't care how apt, applicable, powerful, pregnant with meaning, or signifigant your metaphor is if you place it in a world that makes no sense. Our world can be made sense of. That one cannot, and so the metaphor loses any credibility it once had. Yeech. There are no Matrix sequels.

Breath

Breath

... Sigh ...

 

[Rackhir]

But when you have a huge hole in the story that isn't explained, then the point the metaphor is trying to make is weakened. Just as in a symbolic logic mapping of an argument, if the premisies are weak or flawed, then the conclusion will be as well. That's the problem with robot sentience in the Matrix sequels.

I, Robot did robot sentience better; there was a progression of thought in the mainframe AI that led it to the decision to take over the world, and I think that's what Rackhir wants from the Matrix stuff. Humans won't give away sentience on purpose, at least not without building failsafes.

Good way of putting it.

There are no Matrix sequels.

You can not enjoy the matrix sequels, because that is impossible. To enjoy the Matrix Sequels you must first realize that there are no Matrix Sequels.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

(load of )

I could refute you point by point, but it's already been done far better by greater minds. Watch the sequels with the Wilber/West commentary, it will make much more sense. Oh, and by the way, to call them sequels is inaccurate- they're an integral part of a single script that the Wachowskis divided up- they wrote the whole thing in 1996... so they weren't just tacked on...