Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 24, 2023 10:32:46 GMT -8
Yes, a nice job by Keanu Reeves, all things considered. And Fishburne is excellent. And you being a married man, you can not openly lust after Carrie-Anne Moss in the skin-tight black suit. Suffice it to say, the rest of us picked up the slack. Regarding the sequels, I suppose I could nuance my approach by saying DO NOT WATCH THEM! Really, the story just meanders from there and is more of the same. If one Agent Smith was good, how about 25? Or 50? Or even 5000? Rinse and repeat. Of course, I did watch the two sequels...which I heard is just the one book split more or less into thirds. But I found nothing intrinsically interesting about the second two movies. And the fourth is such a waste of space, I turned it off after five minutes. So you saw the best of it and it is probably best just to leave it at that. Still, the two sequels aren't terrible. It extends the love story of Neo and the Woman in the Skin-Tight Spandex. But they really don't turn over any new ground. In the end (if memory serves), the machines come to some kind of truce with the humans. I think. Because of Neo. Why because of Neo? I can't remember. Maybe they liked his acting. It's such a hodge-podge of barely-consistent sci-fi that you really don't care all that much by the time they get to the end. Which wasn't really the end because in the third sequel (fourth film overall) apparently they all (or at least Neo) forgets who he is and they basically remake the first movie. So it's all downhill from the first movie, but it's a somewhat gentle slope at first before going off the cliff.  And if you're sort of on the wall about all of this, you can choose to take the purple pill. |
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 24, 2023 15:02:08 GMT -8
Brad makes a good summary of the other two movies and the original is the better of the three. One thing I would add is the sequels point out that the machines have won and the humans are manipulated by two sides of the the AI. In effect it is all a game with the computer playing against itself. It just keeps repeating with the same outcome every time.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 24, 2023 18:52:13 GMT -8
Thanks for the clarification. It's been a long time since I've seen the sequels and I'm not sure that I understood what was going on at the time.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 24, 2023 18:57:16 GMT -8
That's a fair enough statement, although I think the real quandary is: If you could only take one of these women-in-black to a desert island to live with you, would it be Carrie-Anne Moss or Kate Beckinsale?  I admit giving a slight nod to Selene in the Underworld series. I thought that was a quite good first movie and the other (two, at least) were watchable. Either way, if you like your gothic chicks, these girls have it. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 24, 2023 21:27:35 GMT -8
The remarkable thing about either of these women is that they played strong women without trying to act like pseudo-men. Granted, this is sci-fi. One is a vampire. The other has super-powers because of being implanted with super-programs while existing in a computer-generated matrix. These were "strong" women in a way that was believable.
Even so, the writers felt no need (at the time) to show men as inferior with the women always stepping in to fix things. And not only did they play strong women, they played feminine women. If you haven't seen the first Underworld, you might like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 24, 2023 21:33:56 GMT -8
In the old Marine sniper world a Kate always refers to the sniper's most important tool. I also tend to favor Kate over Carri. I guess it could be cate and carry  |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 25, 2023 8:03:12 GMT -8
One of the faddish notions I've run across, as I'm sure you have as well, is this idea that we are all living inside a simulation (usually expressed as a computer simulation). No doubt this faddish idea (it marks one as an "intellectual" to suppose such great thoughts) came from movies such as The Matrix. We can (maybe) forgive these egotist yutes for supposing they have invented some new and important notion, for more time these days is spent teaching them that there are more than two genders than teaching them their own history. But the idea that what we see is not all there is is an ancient one: Ecclesiastes 1:9: What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 1 Corinthians 13:12: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. Hamlet Act 1, scene 5: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Even (now) woke pseudo-scientific rags that used to be respected publications, such as Scientific American, take up the subject: Probably the most pernicious purveyor of cultural scientific garbage (making Bill Nye, the Science Guy, look like a piker) is Neil deGrasse Tyson: 50-50, huh? This brings us to another relevant quote: G.K. Chesteron (attributed): When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything. Should we of the elder generation castigate the yute generations for being ignorant, for one could suppose they just haven't lived long enough yet to find out basic truths? But this isn't about facts learned or not learned. This is about dime-store philosophy masquerading as smart. Another quote: So the idea of a timeless, outside-of-nature, Creator is stupid but the above is what "smart" people believe is possible, even (50-50) likely? This next quote is a doozie: It's funny how these ideas coincide precisely with the idea of a universe made by a rational and intelligent Creator...aka "God." To quote another sage: Dennis Prager: You have to have gone to college to say something that stupid. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 25, 2023 19:51:54 GMT -8
Yes. And I think this was exacerbated when we starting handing out gold stars just for showing up, when little Johnny or little Jane was conceived to be so mentally fragile that nothing but positive reinforcement (no matter how wrong they were) was dispensed. This is also largely due to the preponderance of women in education. People too readily form the idea, if only from the lack of due criticism, that if their lips are moving, it must be Solomon-like wisdom. Most have never had a dose of what we traditionally call "critical thinking." We're breading narcissists and little (and big) barbarians.
And it is being toppled by political correct, the system of thought that replaces what is true by either what we want to be true or what should be true.
There's always been untouchable orthodoxy. But political correctness has expended it into every crevice of thought, reinforcing the true truism that Leftism is a totalitarian system.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 26, 2023 11:18:48 GMT -8
these days it is particularly easy for anyone to write anything about anything and appear to be knowledgeable This is a skill that can be learned. One that I learned at CIA and later in university was to be able to give a 15 minute briefing on almost any subject, answer obvious questions and then sit down and shut the fuck up. There is no need to be a polymorph or a sophist. Learn the buzz words for your organization, agency, company or religion and it's possible to have zero actual knowledge of a subject and appear to be an expert. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 26, 2023 15:24:37 GMT -8
I do remember that in the earlier (if not also later) elementary grades that probably half of the marks regarded behavior issues...not inherently a bad thing if not being a Little Barbarian is part of the point of public schooling. Or was.
I was just a minor barbarian. I remember one report card (3rd grade?) when the teacher wrote on it "Bradley has been making unusual noises in class." I got caught making fart noises with my armpit. What can I say. I was Genghis Khan in the making, nipped in the bud just in time.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 26, 2023 15:32:52 GMT -8
There are often alarms raised about artificial intelligence. They're making programs now that can write passable poetry and that kind of thing. I've read a bit here and there and the output of some of the A.I. is surprisingly good.
One article I read showed the results of some all-purpose (they're being integrated into browsers and search engines now) A.I. program writing a conservative article. It actually wasn't half bad. In fact, it was better than most of the canned trash passing for conservative thought. Or at least no worse...which makes you realize just how formulaic this political stuff (on either side) has become.
But I never forget (nor have reason to forget) that there are real human beings behind the keyboard at Reviews&Things. But elsewhere? If much of this stuff is not being produced by robots, at might as well be.
So shall we condemn A.I? Imagine A.I. programs in the hands of press agents, etc. If anything, these programs might improve the canning process, for an A.I. program could hardly do worse than what we humans are trashing out.
|
|
