list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Matrix [Film Series] on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Matrix_Film_Series/223561/default.aspx Title: The Matrix [Film Series]
Times Tagged: 8
Number of Lists: 8
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:02 GMTThe Matrix [Film Series]8Taggedy Taggged (6-10)853http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Matrix_Film_Series/223561/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/5/39117.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/5/2009 5:01:02 PM
Body: Out of all the cinematic staples, the so-called “magical negro” is the worst to define and discuss due to it being the mother of all loaded terms. A catch-all phrase used to describe how African-Americans in film tend to be superhuman physically, spiritually or both, it’s currently in the midst of the pop cultural zeitgeist thanks to a crappy song and New Year’s faux-pas. Anytime someone sees a black character used as a story tool in a film — in the case of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) originally didn’t exist in Fitzgerald’s story — there is a mild cry of “There! There! I see a magical negro in the distance! Yes! There!” One should wonder why Eric Roth deemed it necessary to suddenly introduce the character as a framing device for guiding the CGI Man-Child about, but that’s up to anyone who can be assed to sit through that three hour bore. So, we’ve taken it upon ourselves—and in full expectation of the eventual backlash that will come from one friend of ours, Odienator at Big Media Vandalism—to deconstruct the favorite crutch of Stephen King, the Wachowski Brothers and whoever else has a problem understanding just what makes the worst stereotype the worst stereotype. The “Morgan Freeman” As Seen In: Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty, The Shawshank Redemption A controversial choice, sure, and quite possibly a lazy choice. But Morgan Freeman has so deeply inserted himself in our culture as the wise, old teacher that him playing a seductively raging pimp in Street Smart seems impossible. Yet his gravely, nurturing voice seems to soothe us into believing whatever he says. And for some reason, he’s now playing into the comfortable role that he’s been typecast as since Driving Miss Daisy–the wiry, coy helper who can do fine on his own, but decides to help the Lead instead. In a way, Freeman became unintentionally responsible for confusing any black actor in any role as falling under the “magic negro” cliché. The Angel As Seen In: The Family Man, The Legend of Bagger Vance, What Dreams May Come, The Preacher’s Wife Every so often, a Successful White Guy finds himself with an overwhelming problem: his girlfriend left him, he’s too rich and successful, he realizes he’s Robin Williams. And lo, a loosely defined but altruistic Black Man will appear with unknown powers to set the S.W.G. straight. Sometimes, he’ll appear as Don Cheadle. Other times, he’ll be Will Smith, emerging from the woods and help you get your (golf) game back. And rarely, he’ll be Cuba Gooding, Jr. (and later Max von Sydow) or Denzel Washington, who’ll help you re-connect with your loved ones. Best shown through the utter ridiculousness from Bagger Vance, The Angel provides a fresh start to our troubled lead character, who must pretend to have his angst quickly fixed by the folksy and whimsical lessons given by their winged friends. Ultimately, there’s a generic life lesson learned (”keep family close, don’t let work get in the way, learn golf”) that benefits both the Angel and the S.W.G. (and in case of Preacher’s Wife, Courtney Vance.) The Innocent As Seen In: The Green Mile, Radio We’re pushing it with Radio here, but hold on. The Innocent is normally portrayed by a large, intimidating figure (Michael Clarke Duncan) or, if you’re Cuba Gooding Jr., a “full retard.” Everything is child-like to them and they’re incapable of controlling their own strength–or knowingly acting as if they have mental problems for critical acclaim. And they posses a great inner spirit that seems almost magical. Not to mention their sympathetic white friends (Tom Hanks, Ed Harris) feel pity for them based on their short-comings, but are won over by their child-like sympathy–and curing their tract infections. The Teacher As Seen In: The Matrix Trilogy, The Secret Life of Bees, The Shining Whether they’re telling Keanu to free his mind, teaching Dakota Fanning about the blues and selling her precious honey, or demonstrating how to talk with your index finger–The Teacher is there. While the role could be played by anyone, here we’re given figures that seem to have all the knowledge in the world, yet all they can be is a foil to pass that onto another character–normally the dopey white guy or gal. As Spike Lee once asked, “How is it that black people have these powers but they use them for the benefit of white people?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:02 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/5/2009 5:01:02 PMOut of all the cinematic staples, the so-called “magical negro” is the worst to define and discuss due to it being the mother of all loaded terms. A catch-all phrase used to describe how African-Americans in film tend to be superhuman physically, spiritually or both, it’s currently in the midst of the pop cultural zeitgeist thanks to a crappy song and New Year’s faux-pas. Anytime someone sees a black character used as a story tool in a film — in the case of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) originally didn’t exist in Fitzgerald’s story — there is a mild cry of “There! There! I see a magical negro in the distance! Yes! There!” One should wonder why Eric Roth deemed it necessary to suddenly introduce the character as a framing device for guiding the CGI Man-Child about, but that’s up to anyone who can be assed to sit through that three hour bore. So, we’ve taken it upon ourselves—and in full expectation of the eventual backlash that will come from one friend of ours, Odienator at Big Media Vandalism—to deconstruct the favorite crutch of Stephen King, the Wachowski Brothers and whoever else has a problem understanding just what makes the worst stereotype the worst stereotype. The “Morgan Freeman” As Seen In: Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty, The Shawshank Redemption A controversial choice, sure, and quite possibly a lazy choice. But Morgan Freeman has so deeply inserted himself in our culture as the wise, old teacher that him playing a seductively raging pimp in Street Smart seems impossible. Yet his gravely, nurturing voice seems to soothe us into believing whatever he says. And for some reason, he’s now playing into the comfortable role that he’s been typecast as since Driving Miss Daisy–the wiry, coy helper who can do fine on his own, but decides to help the Lead instead. In a way, Freeman became unintentionally responsible for confusing any black actor in any role as falling under the “magic negro” cliché. The Angel As Seen In: The Family Man, The Legend of Bagger Vance, What Dreams May Come, The Preacher’s Wife Every so often, a Successful White Guy finds himself with an overwhelming problem: his girlfriend left him, he’s too rich and successful, he realizes he’s Robin Williams. And lo, a loosely defined but altruistic Black Man will appear with unknown powers to set the S.W.G. straight. Sometimes, he’ll appear as Don Cheadle. Other times, he’ll be Will Smith, emerging from the woods and help you get your (golf) game back. And rarely, he’ll be Cuba Gooding, Jr. (and later Max von Sydow) or Denzel Washington, who’ll help you re-connect with your loved ones. Best shown through the utter ridiculousness from Bagger Vance, The Angel provides a fresh start to our troubled lead character, who must pretend to have his angst quickly fixed by the folksy and whimsical lessons given by their winged friends. Ultimately, there’s a generic life lesson learned (”keep family close, don’t let work get in the way, learn golf”) that benefits both the Angel and the S.W.G. (and in case of Preacher’s Wife, Courtney Vance.) The Innocent As Seen In: The Green Mile, Radio We’re pushing it with Radio here, but hold on. The Innocent is normally portrayed by a large, intimidating figure (Michael Clarke Duncan) or, if you’re Cuba Gooding Jr., a “full retard.” Everything is child-like to them and they’re incapable of controlling their own strength–or knowingly acting as if they have mental problems for critical acclaim. And they posses a great inner spirit that seems almost magical. Not to mention their sympathetic white friends (Tom Hanks, Ed Harris) feel pity for them based on their short-comings, but are won over by their child-like sympathy–and curing their tract infections. The Teacher As Seen In: The Matrix Trilogy, The Secret Life of Bees, The Shining Whether they’re telling Keanu to free his mind, teaching Dakota Fanning about the blues and selling her precious honey, or demonstrating how to talk with your index finger–The Teacher is there. While the role could be played by anyone, here we’re given figures that seem to have all the knowledge in the world, yet all they can be is a foil to pass that onto another character–normally the dopey white guy or gal. As Spike Lee once asked, “How is it that black people have these powers but they use them for the benefit of white people?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/paarsefrikandel/archive/2007/10/21/21031.aspxPost By: paarsefrikandel
Post To: paarsefrikandel Blog
Post Date: 10/21/2007 4:40:26 PM
Body: A movie about how a normal everyday guy gets who discovers he lives in an alternate reality and how he deals with it.Neo a young computer programmer/hacker is obsessed with just one thing,He wants to know what the matrix is.the first film takes us on a journey of discovery Inside and outside The Matrix-"a computer generated reality wherin al mankind is locked up by The Machineworld".Neo gets contacted by a group of likeminded hackers led by the enigmatic Morpheus who believes that Neo is the "One", the foretold liberator of mankind.At first Neo doesn't buy the story Morpheus tells him about the Matrix ,its origin and its purpose.Neo grows from an unbeliever into a believer after he has to fight the agent "Smith" who realy is a caracter created inside the matrix with the sole purpose to stop anyone from discovering the truth and if they do discover the truth to eliminate them.During this fight neo discovers his true potential in the Matrix and is now ready to take on the machine inteligence behind the Matrix. Good story,good actors,and for the time revolutionary special effects a movie every sci fi fan must have seen.Part two:The Matrix Reloaded Neo Who is now six months further in the story has by now developped extraordinary abilities "you should have seen him" and "he's doing the Superman thing" tells it all.In the meantime Neo has gotten into a relationship with Trinity a female hacker he met in part one,a large part of the movie is about that relationship.There is however a carchase sequence that is realy spectacular you realy must have seen that.the rest of the movie is about Neo and his special fighting skills,wich by the way are all performed by Keanu Reeves and lots of computer generated doubles of him but the moves are realy his and quite spectacular.Personaly I was a bit disapointed by part two because of the weak storyline but the action scenes made good for some of that. Part three:The Matrix RevolutionsNeo is now ready to take on "the Machines" which are behind it all.Agent Smith is no longer a part of the Matrix and is now able to escape the Matrix to attack Neo in the real world where he has no special powers.Zion the last underground city inhabited by the last free humans is under atack by the Machines and neo leavesfor the Machinecity to fight the decisive batle for mankinds freedom.Ofcourse he wins and that's the end.Filled with special effects and action scenes,I wasn't bored for a second but the story was very straight forward not like part one.
]]>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:40:26 GMTpaarsefrikandelpaarsefrikandel Blog10/21/2007 4:40:26 PMA movie about how a normal everyday guy gets who discovers he lives in an alternate reality and how he deals with it.Neo a young computer programmer/hacker is obsessed with just one thing,He wants to know what the matrix is.the first film takes us on a journey of discovery Inside and outside The Matrix-"a computer generated reality wherin al mankind is locked up by The Machineworld".Neo gets contacted by a group of likeminded hackers led by the enigmatic Morpheus who believes that Neo is the "One", the foretold liberator of mankind.At first Neo doesn't buy the story Morpheus tells him about the Matrix ,its origin and its purpose.Neo grows from an unbeliever into a believer after he has to fight the agent "Smith" who realy is a caracter created inside the matrix with the sole purpose to stop anyone from discovering the truth and if they do discover the truth to eliminate them.During this fight neo discovers his true potential in the Matrix and is now ready to take on the machine inteligence behind the Matrix. Good story,good actors,and for the time revolutionary special effects a movie every sci fi fan must have seen.Part two:The Matrix Reloaded Neo Who is now six months further in the story has by now developped extraordinary abilities "you should have seen him" and "he's doing the Superman thing" tells it all.In the meantime Neo has gotten into a relationship with Trinity a female hacker he met in part one,a large part of the movie is about that relationship.There is however a carchase sequence that is realy spectacular you realy must have seen that.the rest of the movie is about Neo and his special fighting skills,wich by the way are all performed by Keanu Reeves and lots of computer generated doubles of him but the moves are realy his and quite spectacular.Personaly I was a bit disapointed by part two because of the weak storyline but the action scenes made good for some of that. Part three:The Matrix RevolutionsNeo is now ready to take on "the Machines" which are behind it all.Agent Smith is no longer a part of the Matrix and is now able to escape the Matrix to attack Neo in the real world where he has no special powers.Zion the last underground city inhabited by the last free humans is under atack by the Machines and neo leavesfor the Machinecity to fight the decisive batle for mankinds freedom.Ofcourse he wins and that's the end.Filled with special effects and action scenes,I wasn't bored for a second but the story was very straight forward not like part one. http://www.spout.com/blogs/puhnner/archive/2007/8/17/18275.aspxPost By: Puhnner
Post To: Puhnner Blog
Post Date: 8/17/2007 9:36:04 AM
Body: an interesting article from the science section of the new york times; grab a cup of something:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=print FindingsOur Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch By JOHN TIERNEYUntil I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims. But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation. This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.You couldn’t, as in “The Matrix,” unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn’t see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or “posthumans,” could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn’t matter for Dr. Bostrom’s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors. There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they’d experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world. The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations.“This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly,” Dr. Bostrom says. “Maybe they wouldn’t need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they’d have better methodologies for understanding their past. It’s quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesn’t mean it won’t happen.” Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it’s highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they’d be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothing’s real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesn’t mean your feelings are any less real. David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis isn’t a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever you’re touching now — a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug — is real to you even if it’s created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay.You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world — and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person. Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. (For more on survival strategies in a computer simulation, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.)Of course, it’s tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation — the Prime Designer, let’s call him or her (or it).Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldn’t allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, they’d presumably realize, by Dr. Bostrom’s logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer?If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what’s going on, then I really shouldn’t be spreading Dr. Bostrom’s ideas. But if you’re still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.It’s also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.If that’s true, it’s bad news for the futurists who think we’ll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. We’d start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end — not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime Designer’s computer.It might be something clunky like “Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation.” But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: “Game Over.”
]]>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:36:04 GMTPuhnnerPuhnner Blog8/17/2007 9:36:04 AMan interesting article from the science section of the new york times; grab a cup of something:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=print FindingsOur Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch By JOHN TIERNEYUntil I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims. But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation. This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.You couldn’t, as in “The Matrix,” unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn’t see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or “posthumans,” could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn’t matter for Dr. Bostrom’s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors. There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they’d experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world. The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations.“This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly,” Dr. Bostrom says. “Maybe they wouldn’t need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they’d have better methodologies for understanding their past. It’s quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesn’t mean it won’t happen.” Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it’s highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they’d be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothing’s real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesn’t mean your feelings are any less real. David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis isn’t a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever you’re touching now — a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug — is real to you even if it’s created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay.You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world — and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person. Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. (For more on survival strategies in a computer simulation, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.)Of course, it’s tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation — the Prime Designer, let’s call him or her (or it).Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldn’t allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, they’d presumably realize, by Dr. Bostrom’s logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer?If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what’s going on, then I really shouldn’t be spreading Dr. Bostrom’s ideas. But if you’re still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.It’s also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.If that’s true, it’s bad news for the futurists who think we’ll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. We’d start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end — not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime Designer’s computer.It might be something clunky like “Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation.” But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: “Game Over.” http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2007/6/8/10365.aspxPost By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 6/8/2007 12:26:09 AM
Body: It was worthy entertainment the whole way through, but the last two parts were merely a very thin storyline from the first ... the first part was THE THE MATRIX, the rest were as eventful as murders of the extras.
]]>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:26:09 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good6/8/2007 12:26:09 AMIt was worthy entertainment the whole way through, but the last two parts were merely a very thin storyline from the first ... the first part was THE THE MATRIX, the rest were as eventful as murders of the extras. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2007/6/8/10363.aspxPost By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 6/8/2007 12:10:00 AM
Body: It might not have been such an empty story 13-14 years ago (did they have the moving picture back then too? lol)--when 'racial equality, etc.' was hard-hitting stuff (just like "we're all part of THE MATRIX" probably doesn't shake anyone as much as it did when first 'revealed') ... heck, it's possible that some writers would burst into spontaneous-ejaculations at seeing Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson in the same frame. The idea of both those actors parenting the same child probably wore them out! leaving them feeling like the job was done after just setting it up.But the writers could have made all the 'finding out things about blood-types and sperm-bank records' more interesting than 'I called a guy up there,' 'I tested my blood-type at school' and even more-interesting than 'I hacked into the labs records while Will Smith (behind a shut door) donated to the bank.'Oh, `93: back when you were a 'hacker' if you could type more than fifteen wpm....
]]>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:00 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good6/8/2007 12:10:00 AMIt might not have been such an empty story 13-14 years ago (did they have the moving picture back then too? lol)--when 'racial equality, etc.' was hard-hitting stuff (just like "we're all part of THE MATRIX" probably doesn't shake anyone as much as it did when first 'revealed') ... heck, it's possible that some writers would burst into spontaneous-ejaculations at seeing Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson in the same frame. The idea of both those actors parenting the same child probably wore them out! leaving them feeling like the job was done after just setting it up.But the writers could have made all the 'finding out things about blood-types and sperm-bank records' more interesting than 'I called a guy up there,' 'I tested my blood-type at school' and even more-interesting than 'I hacked into the labs records while Will Smith (behind a shut door) donated to the bank.'Oh, `93: back when you were a 'hacker' if you could type more than fifteen wpm.... http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/trilogy/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrilogy
Number of films tagged: 23

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 29

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:07 GMT231829Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/neo/MemberTagFilms.aspxneo
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:34 GMT267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oracle/MemberTagFilms.aspxoracle
Number of films tagged: 17

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:00:38 GMT1744Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/trinity/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrinity
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:09:42 GMT444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/BoxSets/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoxSets
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 27

]]>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:48:13 GMT25327Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/merovingian/MemberTagFilms.aspxmerovingian
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:32:35 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/morpheus/MemberTagFilms.aspxmorpheus
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:32:34 GMT111Tag