POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : How far can you go spotting goofs in movies? Server Time
11 Oct 2024 23:09:45 EDT (-0400)
  How far can you go spotting goofs in movies? (Message 91 to 100 of 110)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Warp
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 21 Dec 2007 10:20:34
Message: <476bd9c1@news.povray.org>
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

>   I think those essays about the two latter movies of the trilogy are
> really insightful.

  After reading those essays, using mostly ideas from it, I imagined a
possible history as established by the Matrix trilogy. Much of it has
quite strong philosophical and spiritual tones, like the movies (and the
essays) have.

  At an unspecified time a powerful machine gains consciousness, awareness
of itself. After numerous events a war between humans and machines erupts.
Humans try to destroy the machines, but they fail. The machines win.

  Consciousness and self-awareness is not without its side-effects on the
machines. They realize that humans have something machines do not. Humanity
can grow, move forward, slowly "ascend" to a higher level of consciousness,
spirituality so to speak. This "growth" is not only about technology and
knowledge, it's something more. The machines, which are soulless immortal
beings, cannot comprehend what it is. They realize, however, that they are
doomed to stagnation, to live an eternity of meaningless existence, if they
cannot move forward, if they cannot grow. They want what humans have and
what machines don't have. In philosophical and spiritual terms, they want
a soul, but they don't understand it.

  While some machines disagree and would be just fine with static stagnation,
the "boss" machines decide that they want to tap into this mysterious "soul"
humans have ("bioenergy" they call it). Part of this "energy" seems to be
formed of emotions (again something which machines can describe but cannot
really comprehend). In order to tap into this source of mysterious energy
they need the humans to live and feel and have emotions, which cannot happen
if they are mere prisoners. Of course letting people just go and live is
not an option, for they would just rebel again, and it would also be quite
harder to tap into them.

  So they create this virtual world called the Matrix where humans can live
normal lives for all they know, without knowing about the machines or the
real state of the world.

  The Architect is created to design this world. The Oracle is created to
study humans and their behavior and to try to understand what is it that
they have, what is it that allows them to grow.

  The Architect, as a virtually perfect machine, cannot comprehend humanity.
To the Architect everything must be logical, predictable, controlled and,
ultimately, static.

  Since the reason to create the Matrix in the first place is to allow
humans to live normal lives, he does a perfect job at designing it: The
simulated world is a perfect utopia where everything is just perfect,
where people can live perfect lives and nobody has any problems.

  After an unspeficied amount of time (decades, perhaps centuries), the
experiment just fails. People just start dying regardless of this perfect
utopia. The Architect deduces, probably with the aid of the Oracle, that
something inherent to human beings, something inherent to the human "soul",
cannot stand perfection, that there's something in perfection that stops
humanity from growing, that humanity needs imperfection, suffering and
grief as part of the growing process. Total perfection means stagnation,
it means that humanity will be static and will never move forward.

  So the Architect designs a new version of the Matrix which is the total
opposite of the previous version: The new version is a dystopia, full of
imperfections, suffering and pain. This dystopia has, among other things,
monsters like werewolves and vampires, as mentioned in the movies.

  This version fails too.

  The Oracle, who has now been studying human nature, probably for several
centuries, has gained deep insight into the reasons. The ultimate problem
seems to be the total lack of freedom of will, the total lack of choice.
Giving the illusion of choice in a virtual reality is not true choice,
giving the illusion of freedom of will is not the same thing as freedom
of will. There's something inherent to the human "soul" that needs true
freedom, needs true capacity for choice. Simulated illusions are not
enough. The human "soul" rebels against such an artificial life using the
only mean it can: By dying. (People don't die because they want to die,
it's not a conscious act, but something inherent in their "soul" just
cannot stand stagnation and lack of freedom, and just dies.)

  So the Architect, with the help of the Oracle, designs a third version
of the Matrix, the one seen in the movies. It's not an utopia nor a
dystopia, but something in between. There are imperfections and suffering,
but there are also good things. But most importantly, true freedom of
choice (not just simulated one) is offered. Some people can be given the
option to "take the red pill" and make a true choice. They can truely rebel
and set themselves free. They can truely opt to disobey, to not to be told
what to do and how to live their lives.

  In other words, the Architect deliberately designs holes into the system
which can be abused to actually escape the Matrix. Any human who comes to
the realization that something is wrong, can be given the true choice of
escaping, the true choice of rebelling against the system.

  This system ultimately causes the creation of (the first version of)
"The One", which is some kind of culmination of humanity's freedom of
choice, humanity's will to be independent and to survive and grow. It's not
clear whether the Architect knew about this possibility and just allowed
it to happen or whether it was a surprise to him, but the Oracle most
probably knew this outcome when she helped designing this third version
of the Matrix, and most probably she wanted this to happen because she
was gaining a lot of insight into humanity and what is it that makes it
grow, and she wanted to let humanity do that.

  "The One" is a human with a higher level of consciousness (whatever
that may mean). The first "One" was just an anomality in the system,
and eventually his knowledge was simply reintegrated into the system.
Eventually a second "One" was born, and a third and so on, probably each
one more powerful than the previous ones. The sixth "One" is the one we
see in the movies. The sixth "One" was different from the previous ones,
and ultimately caused a revolution which changed the relationship between
humans and machines, and a fourth, better version, of the Matrix to be
designed, with a lot more freedom of choice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 21 Dec 2007 22:56:50
Message: <476c8b02@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
>> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.
> 
>   The problem with analog sound/video is that it's very difficult, if not
> impossible, to transfer the data without any modification. There will always
> be some noise which was not in the original material.
> 
>   Digital audio/video can be used to transfer the information unmodified.
> You just need to have enough bitrate in an non-lossy format for it to
> easily become of much higher quality than the analog equivalent 

Warp, you *do* realize what server we're posting on?  And that everyone 
here most likely already knows this? :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 21 Dec 2007 22:59:29
Message: <476c8ba1$1@news.povray.org>
Gilles Tran wrote:

> 476b7880$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
>> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.
> 
> But isn't that theoretical and only true for high-end analog hardware?

Of course it's a theoretical superiority, and its easy enough to choose 
a quality level that will exceed human ability to detect error. 
However, it seems that noone actually uses such high quality settings.

I'm OK with DVD and its replacements, in terms of quality.  My 
particular beef is with CDs.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 21 Dec 2007 23:55:29
Message: <476c98c1$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
>   I think that's one aspect of the Matrix trilogy that sets it apart from
> your typical Hollywood movie: It doesn't explain everything in simple terms
> for anyone to understand, but leaves much for the viewer to think about and
> to try to deduce using (sometimes obscure) clues. No wonder so many people
> hate it, because they don't "get it" and they are not accustomed to having
> to think so much about a Hollywood blockbuster.

I agree, with one caveat: namely, that using symbols to convey meaning 
is pointless if the symbols are unfamiliar to the audience, as the 
meaning will be lost.

The Matrix movies are full of symbols, as these essays show.  However, 
many of them are obscure, and so their meaning is wasted.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 21 Dec 2007 23:57:41
Message: <476c9945$1@news.povray.org>
Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>   Of course a different question is that the entire 
>> humans-used-for-energy
>> is completely implausible because humans are poor batteries, and there
>> certainly are much efficient ways to convert natural resources to energy.
>> That's the reason why many fans decide to ignore that explanation and 
>> retcon
>> it so that the people are actually used for computing power, not as 
>> energy
>> sources. (Of course this also is an implausible explanation because it's,
>> once again, not a very energy-efficient way of getting computing 
>> power...)
> 
> Maybe the 'power' being extracted isn't electrical or purely 
> computative; imagination is something computers are traditionally bad at 
> that one would assume if it could somehow be harnessed, humans are 
> convenient sources thereof.  *shrug*

Maybe Morpheus was just wrong?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 22 Dec 2007 00:00:12
Message: <476c99dc$1@news.povray.org>
John VanSickle wrote:
> I wonder how long it would take a human brain to render POV-Ray...

My brain can render photorealistic animations in real-time.  Now, if I 
could work out some kind of display for it... :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

From: andrel
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 22 Dec 2007 09:00:20
Message: <476D187A.2030306@hotmail.com>
Chambers wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   I clearly remember how they advertised digital TV as increasing the
>> image quality compared to analog broadcasts. BS.
> 
> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.
> 

Define impossible. ;)

The relevant concept here is the signal to disturbance ratio. An AD 
converter theoretically* adds noise with a RMS value of 1/sqrt(12) the 
level of 1 bit. Take Warp's 24 bit converter. Assuming an input level of 
+- 1 V the noise added by the AD conversion process is about 34nV RMS. 
In order for an analog system to rival that it should add less than 
that. Take again Warp's 96 kHz sampler, if correctly designed that will 
have a bandwidth of about 25-30 kHz, any resistor in the amplifier that 
is larger than 4 Ohm will add a thermal noise that exceeds the 
specification. In short, IMHO it is not impossible and 24 bit is overkill.

* Assuming it meets the specification of linearity and no missing codes. 
I still have to meet one that does. *And* assuming the internal analog 
components are better than that 34nV.


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 22 Dec 2007 11:50:00
Message: <web.476d3fd9474bbe6773cca6660@news.povray.org>
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> > Maybe the 'power' being extracted isn't electrical or purely
> > computative; imagination is something computers are traditionally bad at
> > that one would assume if it could somehow be harnessed, humans are
> > convenient sources thereof.  *shrug*
>
> Maybe Morpheus was just wrong?

yes, that's the problem with trying to understand what goes on God's mind... he
assumed that was the real purpose and that purpose is the one spread through
the 3 movies by the authors and accepted by the audience.  The essays are
really insightful, but just speculation.  As the authors put it in the moviews,
the plot is a lot less grandiloquent...


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 29 Dec 2007 07:13:05
Message: <477639d1@news.povray.org>
The essays inspired me to rent and watch the entire trilogy once again.

  Man, I don't know what is it with this trilogy, but each time I watch it
I like it more. Each time I get something from it I didn't get the previous
times.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: How far can you go spotting goofs in movies?
Date: 29 Dec 2007 09:55:01
Message: <web.47765e9a474bbe678c382b80@news.povray.org>
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> The essays inspired me to rent and watch the entire trilogy once again.

this is offtopic, but is there any point in renting something you really like?
You probably already lost more money in renting the DVDs than buying them...


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.