]You are wrong to consider 2001 and Blade Runner to be 'light' in Philosophy . . . . I chalk this up to missunderstanding.
and
To read the Matrix as 'deep' philosphically speaking is to read its 'Gnosticism-for-the-masses" mixed with clever reality-within-reality gimmicks as somehow equating with a real exploration of the human condition . . .. I think that that is a shallow surface reading . . . sure its clever, and plays some intellectual tricks but it does not have the integrity of eaither of the three fims that I mentioned.
Matrix is trendy pseudo-gnosticism mixed with bad film-making . . . or rather, not 'bad' fim making, but merely good in terms of action and entertaining the video-game generation
By the way . . . in The Birth of Tragedy Nietszche has the Dionysian experience come as a result of 'Tragedy.': meaning teh overwhaelming realization that the self is ultimately crushed by the forces of nature and that the truth of the world is the truth of Suffering". It is NOT at all like the Matrix revelry . . . That revelry is closer to some of Nietszche's later ideas about the Dionysian . . . .
But really, these filmmakers are cut-and-paste philosophers, who cheapen any real ideas with their idiotic chase scene mentality . . .
And Powerdoc.... yes, I agree, I probably shouldn't relate these films (alien(1), Blade Runner, 2001) to the other Alien films or Predator because they are masterpieces whereas the others are simply movies . . . . some of them are even entertaining but they don't have the same depth.
IMO, One thing that many don't understand with those films is that the 'idea' of the piece is perfectly related to the Form of the film: the pacing, the mise-en-scene, the audio etc Form=content! The Philosophical intelligence of these films resides in more than simply the 'idea' that can be pulled from the movie . . it is in the form of the WHOLE
. . . to compare the Matrix with those films in that regards is a laugh . . .
some good clever scenes, but really . . just point to Keannu Reaves flying like Superman and compare that to the scene where Riddley struggles with the droid in Alien1 . . . one scene is Great the other is a video game!!!!!
Just to add that in each Alien movie since the first the alien becomes more and more innefectual and less frightening . . .
Alien ONE An article about a new Director's cut of the Classic . . .
The article that talks of the films brilliance . . .
I must say that I did enjoy Resurrection. Didn't care for Alien 3 much, but I did like resurrection. It was somewhat twisted, and it had a feel to it that made it fun to watch.
The mere fact that AvP is already being advertised now and that it is being done so by the T3-like "teaser" made me put it on my "nevah!" list.
I mean, how will the script look like? "And then, Alien meets Predator and they, like, fight for 2 hours straight and with lots of explosions and stuff!"
Someone should tell the people in Hollywood to not spend that much money on shit, it's bad for the economy.
I mean, how will the script look like? "And then, Alien meets Predator and they, like, fight for 2 hours straight and with lots of explosions and stuff!"
Considering 2001 to be the best movie ever (at least best Sci Fi movie ever) is a symptom of a disease that I don't like: namely the sydrone of considering all that is old before all that is new.
In 30 years the Matrix will be so much bigger than 2001. 2001 was based on a very interesting story, and in many ways there's a lot of similarity between it and the matrix, especially regarding the placement of computers and the "evolution" of men. But the Matrix is much more tangible than is 2001. There are far too many meaningless, 5 minute sequences in 2001 that, really, are little more than eye candy. Perhaps they set the mood, but there are enough of those nuances in the Matrix as well. The Matrix has much, much more eye candy and manages to say a lot more than 2001 does. . . perhaps because there's only 40 minutes of dialog in 2001.
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
Just to add that in each Alien movie since the first the alien becomes more and more innefectual and less frightening . . .
They also, for some reason, started developing mucas glands all over their bodies. In the first one it was a cool, metallic monster. In the second one, a blur of deadly motion. In the third, it was more animalistic and drooly -- but that made sense, since it came from a dog.
But in Alien 4? They were slime monsters. It was absurd.
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
I agree at 100 % with this point.
I will also add it's amazing to be able to watch a Science fiction movie made in 1968 without laughing out loud. Both the special effects and the way he discribe the future was quite accurate, even if we don't have reach yet, the level of technologie discribed in Kubrick movie.
Look at many science fiction movie of this time, you will find that most of them are corned. In the Cosmos 99 series, the computer of the alpha station was a joke. I remember the black officer typing on a sort of numerical pad, and recieving answers via perforated paper
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
Count me in 100%. 2001 becomes more genius as the years go by. It really is a brilliant film.
But, about Alien vs. Predator, this film is going to suck BIG TIME for three reasons:
1. It is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, who has created nothing but absolute dreck like Event Horizon and Resident Evil. I suffered through both of those films, and I can say that the man has no clue about how to direct an action sequence, and his "look at me, I can spin the camera around needlessly" directorial style is just plain annoying, not to mention amateurish. And yes, who directs a film is important. Despite the unevenness of the final two installments, all four Alien films were directed by highly respected craftsmen: Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher, Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Anderson can't touch any of them.
2. The story destroys all established continuity in the Alien series.
3. Based on advance reports I've heard, the script is downright dreadful. Filled with stock characters and obvious situations, there isn't a shred of originality to it. But then, from one of the writers of Armageddon, that doesn't come as much of a surprise.
AVP is just a crass, market-driven sequel which will open big the first weekend only because of audience curiousity, then quickly plunge out of sight when people realize how awful it is.
I'll pass, and pick up the Alien Quadrilogy Boxed Set instead.
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
While I agree, I'd point out that the technoparanoia is far older than just the last few years of the 1990s. Even Star Wars is, largely, consumed with concerns over the relationship between technology and the individual. There are, or course, older examples, not the least of which is Frankenstein.
About the Matrix trilogy...I don't know. If, *if* the series (and I haven't seen the last one) is able to keep playing around with all the philosophy in interesting ways (Lacan, Boudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, Plato/Socrates, etc) it might be remembered as more than a series of action movies.
About the Matrix trilogy...I don't know. If, *if* the series (and I haven't seen the last one) is able to keep playing around with all the philosophy in interesting ways (Lacan, Boudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, Plato/Socrates, etc) it might be remembered as more than a series of action movies.
well, not to drive this thread down well-trodden matrix roads, but i was disappointed in the first place to hear that there were going to be a second and thrid movie to the matrix.
i felt that the movie ended in a way that you knew and had confidence in the eventual outcome. you didn't need to see it play out to know... seems like a lot of folks who have seen reloaded and revolutions agree (i have not yet seen the third)
About the Matrix trilogy...I don't know. If, *if* the series (and I haven't seen the last one) is able to keep playing around with all the philosophy in interesting ways (Lacan, Boudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, Plato/Socrates, etc) it might be remembered as more than a series of action movies.
Cheers
Scott
I would have to say that the only real philosopher in that list that the Matrix makes use of, at least in any fashion worthy of note, is Baudrillard . . . . and since Baudrillard is a trendy HACK who likes to forget sense for sensationalism it makes perfect sense
. . .perhaps there could be a reading of the Matrix that introduces Foucault (and, through inference, Nietzsche) without too much distortion . . .but really, that would be a terrible shame and a grave injustice to the patience, care, and eloquence of Foucault's work!!!
by the way,
2001 is awesome, was awesome and will be awesome long into the time when the Matrix is forgotten as a mere 'crowd pleaser' . . forgotten by most except for the hardcore fans.
2001 took the notions of our evolution hand-in-hand with our artifacts and made it into an elegant question mark.
I think all films like this (i.e. marketing ploys) should be crammed into the ever growing "Cine-poop" genre. Other Cine-poop-tacular films include such masterpieces as:
Scooby Doo
Flintstones
Friday the XIII part 47
The final three Star Wars Movies
Any movie with Reese Witherspooned
Any movie that is a take-off on a 60's sitcom
Most Tommy Lee Jones movies
Movies about bitchin, tricked out Hondas
Movies with Vin Diesel not called Saving Private Ryan
Brendan Fraser movies
All Adam Sandler movies not entitled Happy Gilmour
Pitch Black is good low budget escapist action that knows that it is only action
Yup. I'm a big fan of movies like that, and I'm willing to cut all kinds of aesthetic slack for a movie that knows what it is. This spate of video game movies is a good example. Many of them I enjoy purely for what they are.
Are you on crack? I had high hopes for that movie, it failed me. Anger Management was great, Billy Madison was great, and Big Daddy and Water Boy were pretty funny and he has good appearances in other movies. I have not seen Happy Gilmour! yet!
Moogs is funny!
The Shining was retarded. Why does everyone like it? Only good part of seeing it was getting the Family Guy gag when they move to their inherited house.
I am for the first time watching the Alien movies and they're just dumb old action movies, but the lines like game over man are funny. Once again, so we can get the Family Guy gag. The vehicle in two kicks though. Also the asshole and The Company are pertinent to how America operates and will operate in the future. Companies will fsck us just like are fscking us today, people will sacrifice their fellow man for money. yay!
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
]You are wrong to consider 2001 and Blade Runner to be 'light' in Philosophy . . . . I chalk this up to missunderstanding.
and
To read the Matrix as 'deep' philosphically speaking is to read its 'Gnosticism-for-the-masses" mixed with clever reality-within-reality gimmicks as somehow equating with a real exploration of the human condition . . .. I think that that is a shallow surface reading . . . sure its clever, and plays some intellectual tricks but it does not have the integrity of eaither of the three fims that I mentioned.
Matrix is trendy pseudo-gnosticism mixed with bad film-making . . . or rather, not 'bad' fim making, but merely good in terms of action and entertaining the video-game generation
By the way . . . in The Birth of Tragedy Nietszche has the Dionysian experience come as a result of 'Tragedy.': meaning teh overwhaelming realization that the self is ultimately crushed by the forces of nature and that the truth of the world is the truth of Suffering". It is NOT at all like the Matrix revelry . . . That revelry is closer to some of Nietszche's later ideas about the Dionysian . . . .
But really, these filmmakers are cut-and-paste philosophers, who cheapen any real ideas with their idiotic chase scene mentality . . .
And Powerdoc.... yes, I agree, I probably shouldn't relate these films (alien(1), Blade Runner, 2001) to the other Alien films or Predator because they are masterpieces whereas the others are simply movies . . . . some of them are even entertaining but they don't have the same depth.
IMO, One thing that many don't understand with those films is that the 'idea' of the piece is perfectly related to the Form of the film: the pacing, the mise-en-scene, the audio etc Form=content! The Philosophical intelligence of these films resides in more than simply the 'idea' that can be pulled from the movie . . it is in the form of the WHOLE
. . . to compare the Matrix with those films in that regards is a laugh . . .
some good clever scenes, but really . . just point to Keannu Reaves flying like Superman and compare that to the scene where Riddley struggles with the droid in Alien1 . . . one scene is Great the other is a video game!!!!!
Just to add that in each Alien movie since the first the alien becomes more and more innefectual and less frightening . . .
Its short but suggestive
to read the whole thing you need to go through the Salon preview but its harmless and you don't have to sign anything . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Just to add that in each Alien movie since the first the alien becomes more and more innefectual and less frightening . . .
Like I said, Cameron will be the first to admit this. For Aliens, that wasn't his aim. He didn't want to attempt the impossible.
Originally posted by pfflam
Alien ONE An article about a new Director's cut of the Classic . . .
The article that talks of the films brilliance . . .
Why post this shot? Was she not in her underthings in one of those movies? That's what I remember, but I am getting old...
Originally posted by pfflam
Alien ONE An article about a new Director's cut of the Classic . . .
The article that talks of the films brilliance . . .
I must say that I did enjoy Resurrection. Didn't care for Alien 3 much, but I did like resurrection. It was somewhat twisted, and it had a feel to it that made it fun to watch.
I mean, how will the script look like? "And then, Alien meets Predator and they, like, fight for 2 hours straight and with lots of explosions and stuff!"
Someone should tell the people in Hollywood to not spend that much money on shit, it's bad for the economy.
I mean, how will the script look like? "And then, Alien meets Predator and they, like, fight for 2 hours straight and with lots of explosions and stuff!"
so just like Aliens.......
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Considering 2001 to be the best movie ever (at least best Sci Fi movie ever) is a symptom of a disease that I don't like: namely the sydrone of considering all that is old before all that is new.
In 30 years the Matrix will be so much bigger than 2001. 2001 was based on a very interesting story, and in many ways there's a lot of similarity between it and the matrix, especially regarding the placement of computers and the "evolution" of men. But the Matrix is much more tangible than is 2001. There are far too many meaningless, 5 minute sequences in 2001 that, really, are little more than eye candy. Perhaps they set the mood, but there are enough of those nuances in the Matrix as well. The Matrix has much, much more eye candy and manages to say a lot more than 2001 does. . . perhaps because there's only 40 minutes of dialog in 2001.
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
Originally posted by pfflam
Just to add that in each Alien movie since the first the alien becomes more and more innefectual and less frightening . . .
They also, for some reason, started developing mucas glands all over their bodies. In the first one it was a cool, metallic monster. In the second one, a blur of deadly motion. In the third, it was more animalistic and drooly -- but that made sense, since it came from a dog.
But in Alien 4? They were slime monsters. It was absurd.
Originally posted by Kirkland
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
I agree at 100 % with this point.
I will also add it's amazing to be able to watch a Science fiction movie made in 1968 without laughing out loud. Both the special effects and the way he discribe the future was quite accurate, even if we don't have reach yet, the level of technologie discribed in Kubrick movie.
Look at many science fiction movie of this time, you will find that most of them are corned. In the Cosmos 99 series, the computer of the alpha station was a joke. I remember the black officer typing on a sort of numerical pad, and recieving answers via perforated paper
Originally posted by Kirkland
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
Count me in 100%. 2001 becomes more genius as the years go by. It really is a brilliant film.
But, about Alien vs. Predator, this film is going to suck BIG TIME for three reasons:
1. It is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, who has created nothing but absolute dreck like Event Horizon and Resident Evil. I suffered through both of those films, and I can say that the man has no clue about how to direct an action sequence, and his "look at me, I can spin the camera around needlessly" directorial style is just plain annoying, not to mention amateurish. And yes, who directs a film is important. Despite the unevenness of the final two installments, all four Alien films were directed by highly respected craftsmen: Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher, Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Anderson can't touch any of them.
2. The story destroys all established continuity in the Alien series.
3. Based on advance reports I've heard, the script is downright dreadful. Filled with stock characters and obvious situations, there isn't a shred of originality to it. But then, from one of the writers of Armageddon, that doesn't come as much of a surprise.
AVP is just a crass, market-driven sequel which will open big the first weekend only because of audience curiousity, then quickly plunge out of sight when people realize how awful it is.
I'll pass, and pick up the Alien Quadrilogy Boxed Set instead.
GTSC
Originally posted by Kirkland
As a film major, I must disagree. 2001 is a masterpiece. Every frame is a work of art. It doesn't have mindless, stupid action -- and that's one of it's best traits. Matrix will be looked upon as a fun little film that tapped into a vein of techoparanoia that was rampant in the last years of the 1990s, but it doesn't have the breadth of scope or artistry that Kubrick's film has. Kubrick is simply a better filmmaker than the brothers who made Matrix.
While I agree, I'd point out that the technoparanoia is far older than just the last few years of the 1990s. Even Star Wars is, largely, consumed with concerns over the relationship between technology and the individual. There are, or course, older examples, not the least of which is Frankenstein.
About the Matrix trilogy...I don't know. If, *if* the series (and I haven't seen the last one) is able to keep playing around with all the philosophy in interesting ways (Lacan, Boudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, Plato/Socrates, etc) it might be remembered as more than a series of action movies.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
About the Matrix trilogy...I don't know. If, *if* the series (and I haven't seen the last one) is able to keep playing around with all the philosophy in interesting ways (Lacan, Boudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, Plato/Socrates, etc) it might be remembered as more than a series of action movies.
well, not to drive this thread down well-trodden matrix roads, but i was disappointed in the first place to hear that there were going to be a second and thrid movie to the matrix.
i felt that the movie ended in a way that you knew and had confidence in the eventual outcome. you didn't need to see it play out to know... seems like a lot of folks who have seen reloaded and revolutions agree (i have not yet seen the third)
Originally posted by midwinter
About the Matrix trilogy...I don't know. If, *if* the series (and I haven't seen the last one) is able to keep playing around with all the philosophy in interesting ways (Lacan, Boudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, Plato/Socrates, etc) it might be remembered as more than a series of action movies.
Cheers
Scott
I would have to say that the only real philosopher in that list that the Matrix makes use of, at least in any fashion worthy of note, is Baudrillard . . . . and since Baudrillard is a trendy HACK who likes to forget sense for sensationalism it makes perfect sense
. . .perhaps there could be a reading of the Matrix that introduces Foucault (and, through inference, Nietzsche) without too much distortion . . .but really, that would be a terrible shame and a grave injustice to the patience, care, and eloquence of Foucault's work!!!
by the way,
2001 is awesome, was awesome and will be awesome long into the time when the Matrix is forgotten as a mere 'crowd pleaser' . . forgotten by most except for the hardcore fans.
2001 took the notions of our evolution hand-in-hand with our artifacts and made it into an elegant question mark.
Scooby Doo
Flintstones
Friday the XIII part 47
The final three Star Wars Movies
Any movie with Reese Witherspooned
Any movie that is a take-off on a 60's sitcom
Most Tommy Lee Jones movies
Movies about bitchin, tricked out Hondas
Movies with Vin Diesel not called Saving Private Ryan
Brendan Fraser movies
All Adam Sandler movies not entitled Happy Gilmour
etc
Originally posted by Moogs
Movies with Vin Diesel not called Saving Private Ryan
Brendan Fraser movies
All Adam Sandler movies not entitled Happy Gilmour
Vin Diesel:
Boiler Room = excellent
Brendan Frasier
Gods and Monsters = Excellent
Adam Sandler:
Nothing good at all exceot Mr. Deeds.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Vin Diesel:
Pitch Black is good low budget escapist action that knows that it is only action
Originally posted by pfflam
Pitch Black is good low budget escapist action that knows that it is only action
Yup. I'm a big fan of movies like that, and I'm willing to cut all kinds of aesthetic slack for a movie that knows what it is. This spate of video game movies is a good example. Many of them I enjoy purely for what they are.
Cheers
Scott
Adam Sandler:
Nothing good at all exceot Mr. Deeds.
Are you on crack? I had high hopes for that movie, it failed me. Anger Management was great, Billy Madison was great, and Big Daddy and Water Boy were pretty funny and he has good appearances in other movies. I have not seen Happy Gilmour! yet!
Moogs is funny!
The Shining was retarded. Why does everyone like it? Only good part of seeing it was getting the Family Guy gag when they move to their inherited house.
I am for the first time watching the Alien movies and they're just dumb old action movies, but the lines like game over man are funny. Once again, so we can get the Family Guy gag.