Well, that was fun! Was this week's film.

Dear All,
Thank you for all the abuse/criticism/death threats. I probably
deserve at least some of it and it was nice to get 19 replies to something I
sent in instead of being ignored as usual. Anyway, my responses to some
people-

1. People have complained that my comments on the film "This film sucks and
it is really, really bad as well." were insulting. The majority of you not
being arts students I suppose that I shouldn't have expected you to notice
that this choice of vocabulary is ironic, i.e. NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN
SERIOUSLY. This was a largely humorous e-mail, something also indicated by
the post-modern reference to tele-tubbies. It was NOT an attack on anyone
except the people who made the film.

2. I don't really want to go to the pub straight away because the majority
of my friends will be watching the film and I can only afford one drink all
night. The film is a good appetizer for the pub.

3. I have not complained about every film that has been shown, not even
about a majority of films that have been shown. I think the committee has
shown a wonderful variety of films and I am particularly impressed that they
managed to get a DVD player and show films before they are released in this
country.

4. On the other hand, I do hate the crow and I feel that they should have
ignored the vote and put on something that is better and more modern. The
crow is so old that it has been on ITV for god's sake. This means that the
majority of people have already seen it and consequently it will attract
fewer people apart from the regulars.

5. I have not criticized the posters for this film. I think the art work is
very good and I am very impressed they are up early.

6. I would like to thank Simon and others for their support. It's nice that
some people can recognize a bad film when they see it. The crow is
invulnerable until the bad guys uncover his hidden weakness, so that there
can be a little dramatic tension. The crow is nothing but mindless violence,
excused only by the fact that the guys he is massacring are evil. There is
almost no characterization or any real reason to support 'the good guy'
other than the fact that he has a nice sense of style. Compare this film to
the matrix, batman or terminator, films which are both stylish, have good
plots and excellent characters and you will see the difference.

7. I thought the purpose of Chat was to allow people to talk
about/praise/slag off various bits of SF with like-minded people. Has free
speech been banned?

Sorry this reply has arrived after the thread has changed but I had lectures
this morning.

Luke

Dalli L said:
Not at all... Which is why you should expect people to freely speak back
when you upset them.

... actually, having said that... the IFIS lists are not ideal forums for
the expression of free speech anyway. If you wanted to waffle on about the
pros and cons of the labour government's budget, for example, the IFIS lists
would not be the place to do it, and if you did it too often, you'd probably
find your "free speech" quashed and/or directed to somewhere more
appropriate...

... but if you want to speak freely about sci-fi/fantasy/horror/etc stuff,
including the crow, then yes, absolutely, you're more than welcome... and
others are more than welcome to speak freely back! :-)

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

all
is
I hope you're not trying to wedge a quick pint out of me, Luke :o)

cheers
Asan

I hope not, the posters are really cool and people
have been asking me all week if they are our posters
coz they're really cool.

Alex

=====
"I laugh in the face of danger...
...and then I run away and hide." - Xander

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Goody :o) I was going to make the IFIS logo larger, but didn't want
to spoil the overall look of the posters.

cheers
Asan

Dalli L wrote:
Inflamatory perhaps. Wise man say "He works in Methane should not
light matches."
Wherever did you get the idea that irony shouldn't be taken
seriously? Why, there's nothing more important in the whole world.

If it's not meant to be taken seriously, why are you defending
your points of view at all?
I think your email deadpan needs work.
Yep, that's exactly the reason I started it. You could always scrouge
drinks off of ex-members. That's the reason they allow us along you
know!
Yeah, but ITV didn't have the picture quality that we have. Besides
every TV station in the world has shown Starwars and people still
crowd in to watch it...
I deny that the format cannot build dramatic tension. The tension is
built by the simple medium of having the bad guys work out the hero's
secret and set him up for the fall. It's basically the reverse of your
avarage horror movie, where the badguy / monster can't be killed
until you uncover his secret.
I wish you wouldn't just toss around medja terms like that. You're
supposed to be the product of the best university education system
in the world.

Mindless violence implies that it is undirected and without purpose.
The crow is anything but this. If you don't like violence that's
fine, just say so. You can always join the small but vocal minority
who want the Little Mermaid shown at a video evening.
I've always said that characterisation is in the eye of the beholder.
Certainly, Brandon Lee managed to portray the character Eric Draven
to me fairly well. The character was far more convincing than
Keanu (Mr Wood) Reeves in the matrix, Val (Nice nipples) Kilmer
in Batman. Arnie had the advantage that he was playing an
emotionless robot in Terminator so comparisons are difficult.
Other than the complete injustice of the actions carried out against
him, no. It's an action movie, what do you expect?
By which you mean, "Have a style that I like".
I think you really need a more conclusive demonstration of why
the plot and characters in the Crow are so poor if you want to
bring people round to your way of thinking.
It seems to be a common misapprehension (especially by Americans who,
in their usual style, patented something that was sweeping across
the world at the time and then whinged when everyone else wouldn't
give them credit), that the "right to free speech" includes
the "right to be listened to", the "right to be taken seriously" and
the "right to have everyone agree with me".

I'd like to say that the USA does seems to be unique in that they are
trying to make these new rights constitutional. Unfortuanately,
it looks like Tiny Blair is going to beat them to it.

Laters,

Adam (There can be only two)

In article <38D787BB.D8D8D066@>, Adam Hattrell <adamh@> wrote:
Simon calls them as he sees them. He also thinks less of your example films
- in particular Simon thinks "The Matrix" is crap, for much the same reasons
as "The Crow". It's about style without substance.

On the other hand, style with substance ... that's cool. Hence "Unforgiven"
(cowboy style). Or "Trainspotting" (heroin style). Or "Grosse Pointe
Blank" (odd 80's style - it's a generational thing. What I'd call a "Saturn
Return" film.) Even "Thelma and Louise" (I-don't-know-what style, but it's
there.) If you really want "wear black and be depressed style" film, try
"Dark City". Something happens in "Dark City".

The "substance" doesn't have to be serious - not every film needs to be
"Schindler's List" - but it has to be there.


[...]
No. In "Terminator 2" (especially in the directors' cut) Arnie is playing
an emotionless robot that is learning to exist among humans. (Phrased
carefully - there are at least two people on this list that HAVEN'T SEEN
THIS FILM!!!!!) He does it rather well, as Arnie is a better actor than most
people expect him to be.

"Batman", in my humble opinion, is a soso film, which given the material is
a tragedy of the first order. "The Matrix" is wallpaper. Gorgeous
wallpaper at UK250 a roll, suitable for anybody who thinks they are
Archbishop Cranmer returned, but wallpaper nonetheless.

The plot is silly.

Keanu Reeves is awful.

The most attractive character dies in the third reel.

Every computer cliche that Hollywood ever came up with is somehow crowded
into one film.

The only good thing about "The Matrix" is it offers a "geek is trendy"
message to the world. Although you have to buy the uniform, of course.
But it gives the computer scientists of the world a chance to get laid. A
good thing.
I wouldn't mean that. "The Crow" is in a style that I am fairly indifferent
to. But "Casino" and "The Untouchables" are in a style that I dislike (I
find gangster movies depressing and pointless as a rule) and I consider them
both to be bloody good films that I would probably buy. (Richard is almost
certain to beat me to it, though, as he actually likes gangster films.
Strange young man.)

The reasons I dislike "The Crow" are nothing to do with the style. The
reasons are to do with the disjointedness of it (which makes it hard to
like); with the absence of storytelling (I said "action" last time, but it
appears that in the nineties, "action" has come to mean "the thing that
exercises the subwoofer"); and with the total failure of the film to make me
care, even for the duration of it.

The style is there. I can see it, I can even see that it is laid on pretty
thick, but it doesn't ring my bell. If you don't care about the style, the
film is laid bare as the emptiness that it really is.
I think he is pissing into the wind, as "The Crow" is the kind of film that
some people derive self-identity from, and so it is not open to critical
judgement. An attack on it is an attack on them.

Let me ask it this way - would anybody own up to considering (or ever
considering) "The Crow" to being their "all time favourite film"?


[further deletions]



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
M (+44/0)7967 109779 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

simon@ wrote:
Bit of an obvious statement that one isn't it? Anyone who'd
say otherwise doesn't have his neurones wired up the right
way 8*)

simon@ then wrote about the Matrix:
*******Danger Will Robinson, Spoilers approaching *********

{the management takes no responsibility for people who read
beyond this space and have NOT watched the Matrix)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The base plot is excellent if reused.
<SCIENCE>
If the universe was modelled on a giant network of computers
all operating in parallel and each is given an identical
area of space to 'look after' then certain physical laws
would make more sense.
The effects of density on time could be explained by the
increased effort required by the 'local' computers to
simulate the extra matter operating in such a small space.
The speed of light as a maximum just represents the
communication delay between different computers.
Half of quantum mechanics suddenly makes a lot more sense.
Energy levels and discrete steps just mark the limit of the
simulations accuracy and the inherent 'randomness' of
small particle behaviour is a just a cheap way round complex
calculations that might slow the system down.
</SCIENCE>

However the Matrix's use of this plot is silly.
Any decent super intelligent self aware computer would just
have killed the main character after he became detached
from the Matrix.
How does a farm of humans give off more heat than they take
in as energy for food? Unless the human population is
continuously dwindling in number and feeding off their dead
brethren whilst the computer works out a different way
to solve its problem.
The inside defection could only have been thought about
by a complete moron, or someone who was extremely traumatized
by their removal from the Matrix. You'd have thought the
others would have spotted that by now.
As an actor, perhaps.
In films he's just Keanu Reeves, no matter what character
he plays. At least you know what you're getting.

simon@ then wrote some more about the Crow:
I am aware of such people, but they were all americans.

I can't talk though, my truthful answer to "What do you
think was the funniest film of all time?" is Brazil (not
the US version).

Darren

Don't think it was quite aware the sort of damage that he could do.
They flushed him down the bog, and normally this would be the end of
it, it's just that the Nebuchanezzar (spelling?) picked him up before he
drowned.
Well, heat is only one source of energy for the machines.
The human bodies are generating heat and bio-electricity. All you'd have to
do is fool the mind into thinking that it's doing a vigourous physical
activity,
whilst keeping the body physically still, and tap off the electrical
impulses and
heat generated by the phantom activity.

Quote "Combined with a form of fusion, the machines had found all the power
they would ever need"
Quote "Watched them liquify the dead who are then fed intra-venously to the
living"

Quite a decent factory system that. New Batteries are created by using test
tube babies,
to replace the dead batteries who are chucked in a huge blender and used as
food for
the live batteries. Very little waste.
Bit late for that, the man who originally freed them is dead.

Anyway, we're arguing about points which are figments of the author's
imagination (hence, Science Fiction).
Well, yes. I'd say the same about hugh grant. He'll always play the bumbling
english fool,
because basically, he's a crap actor

Cheers
Asan

Speaking as a bumbling english fool myself... no, i can't think of any way
to finish that sentence.

Secretary Me.

Asan Tu wrote:
The computer did know about the 'renegades', it was trying to
get rid of them from the start of the film. Makes sense to
remove a threat from it's source.
Perhaps the computer never read Sun Tsu's art of war.....
I don't have a problem with the energy production it's the
efficiency of the system.
Water's always been a good SCI-FI fusion fuel, and humans
are mostly water, why not just feed them all to the reactor.

<SNIP>
Very little waste matter, yes, but what about energy?
Doh! silly me, mistaking the IFIS chat mailing list for a
place to discuss points in Science Fiction films.

I thought the author was trying to use his imagination to
tell a story to others. Part of the success of a story rests
upon how well it's audience can relate to it. Kinda helps
if continuity and believability are maintained, even in a
sci-fi universe.
Super Intelligent computers that aren't for example don't
help.

Darren
(who does actually like the Matrix)

----- Original Message -----
From: Darren Snee <darrens@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: The Matrix - (was) Well, that was fun!
Hmmmm... The computer was trying to use Neo as a tracking device to the
renegades (he was "bugged").
One can only assume that the computer is unable to match a person's digital
self to their physical plug in the wall,
hence why it didn't go about willy-nilly killing off Neo when the Agents
found him.
hmmm I take your point that it would be difficult to put in x amount of food
energy and get 4x amount of energy back.
However, 2 human batteries could theoretically breed 2+ human babies, who in
turn could become new batteries or firewood. Remember, they're breeding
kiddies all the time.
We're only given glimpses of the human lifecycle in the Matrix, so there's
probably some technobabble explanation for it.
Well, then you'd have no food for the living ones, and you'd have to filter
out all the crap yadda yadda yadda.
I seem to recall water only being useful as a fusion fuel in Chain Reaction
(another Keanu Reeves film). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :o)
eh?
:o) my point is that the concepts are imaginary, and it's perfectly possible
for the author to turn around
and make up several more reasons to plug the holes in the plot, or blindly
waffle on in technobabble (cue star trek). Hence fiction.
Of course, there is a point to which you can take things where they become
completely unbelievable (i.e. Independance day, a virus infecting the alien
computer system, like, WTF?). In contrast, the concepts in The Matrix are
vaguely believable.

:o)

cheers
Asan

[I've snipped the stuf I'm not personally responding to...]
The only point of actual technobabble I could think of (in my capacity as
official IFIS biochemistry consultant) is that mammalian respiration is only
42% efficient. This means that for every 1000KJ of potential chemical energy
consumed (in the form of glucose), the human body only uses 420KJ (the
physicist will know by now what I'm driving at). The remaining energy is
lost as heat. If the computer had found some way of harnessing the lost
energy, then it would have a power generator roughly twice as efficient as
the average internal combustion engine. Of course, if it could find a way of
burning the glucose itself it might be more efficient, but failing that, 58%
is still reasonable. In addition, if it uses bioelectrics as a secondary
power source, then it will recover even more energy, as all neurones
generate a potential difference, not just the brain.
Again, speaking as a biochemist, The Matrix was utter rubbish, or at least
the biochemistry-based science bits were. The computer jargon stuff didn't
make sense either, as far as I understood it, but I don't watch films like
that for the scientific content. 90% of films that I've seen, even the
Sci-Fi ones, have had very little accurate science in them, but what the
hell, they were a lot of fun, perhaps because the science was garbage. To be
honest, we are quite possibly the worst audience to review such things, as
despite our interest in all things sci-fi, we also know too much about the
science involved. The average man-on-the-street will not, and that is the
sort of man Hollywood wants in their audiences. "Hang your intelligence on a
mail by the door, all ye who enter here." is a sign that should go in the
atrium of every cinema in the world.

To use another example, take Sunday's Cthulu in Space session. The party
consisted of a mathematician, an astrophysicist, a computer scientist, and
myself, a biochemist. Despite Simon's efforts to retain scientific accuracy
(and all credit to him for making the attempt), he simply couldn't make it
accurate enough without losing the plot completely. If, for example, the
party was all arts students (no offence intended, this is an
over-generalisation), he could have gotten away with it. As it happens, we
spent longer discussing the science than we did roleplaying.

Anyway, I'd better sign off before Nick either flames me or this turns into
the essay I'm supposed to be writing.

Ron =$-)

be
a
Exactly. tis better to sit there and enjoy the film rather than spend your
time worrying
about the scientific basis behind it, unless it's complete drivel. They're
supposed to be viewed
as entertainment, not as documentaries :o)

Walking with dinosaurs on the other hand....

cheers
Asan

Can't help there - I'm not a paleontologist (sp?) I didn't see Walking with
Dinosaurs either. <hangs head in shame>

=$-)

Asan Tu said:
That was my main dissappointment with Carl Sagan's "Contact" (the SETI one
with jodie foster - not ST: first contact). The book was stunning, and went
into loads of juicy scientific detail. The film entirely skips all of this,
except for a passing reference to "hydrogen times pi!" which feels so
out-of-place that it just sounds like technobabble, even though the book had
explained it brilliantly.

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
You know what they say - don't get mad, get angry...

Asan Tu wrote:
Even positing the agents are bad senario, it just means that they
wanted to keep Neo as bait for Morpheus.
For difficult read physically impossible...
Hmm, so where would the extra mass come from exactly? Those kids have
to eat something. At every stage your loosing energy from the system.
Nope, this breaks just about all of the laws of Thermodynamics.
If they don't apply, then the other universe would be a very
strange place...
Yeah, but I think the original point was that the explaination was
obviously bogus and invalidates some fairly fundemental concepts of
the universe.

Saying, I can cover those up with some more bollox is kind of missing
the point.
Physics is obviously not your strong point. The concepts in the matrix
are far, far worse, than posulating that our super hacker can't
find a way to interface to alien computer software and insert a virus.

Independance day is just incredible unlikely. What they describe in
The Matrix is physically impossible.

See ya,

Adam

digital
Equally true. However, given the film's overall plotline from the terrorists
point of view, it's probably (yes, probably) unlikely that the Agents were
there with the human civilisations' best interests at heart. We won't know
until Matrix 2 and 3 come out.
Ahem. (points at A-Level Physics).

Anyway, it'd make one hell of a final year project :o)

Q1 If you wanted to create a self-sufficient system energy production
system, like the one in the Matrix, how would you go about doing it?
(The use of small animals is prohibited, however, small children are
fare game.)
80%

You can't.
Even THE EARTH, which one might think was fairly self-sufficient, relies on
the energy expended by the sun, which is non-renewable.
Photosynthesis, and all that.

Dominic

"Trust me - I'm a scientist." [Peter Venkman, Ghostbusters]

Asan Tu wrote:
Sack the humans and rely on something more efficient.
GM a plant based food to electricity system.
Burn your matter as fusion fuel.
Move closer to the sun.
Geothermal of course.
Star Trek Device X that violates laws of physics.

A reasonable guess still is that the computer is 'buying
time' for another solution to work. Perhaps the computer
is using the scientists in the Matrix to work on a better
power system and that's why it's keeping them alive.

However....

Adam Hattrell wrote:
Perhaps the computer is after something else. If all these
renegades didn't really escape the matrix but where just
placed in a different simulation then the physical laws
could be anything you like.

But that's probably a bit too silly.
It would keep renegades from really escaping though.

Trust the computer, the computer is your friend.

Darren

----- Original Message -----
From: Darren Snee <darrens@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: The Matrix - (was) Well, that was fun!
Interesting point......
Well, there were early rumours regarding Matrix 2/3 that the
renegades hadn't actually left the matrix. This would be akin to something
like one of the Riker TNG episodes or Red Dwarf's "Better Than Life"
well, yeah. Everytime they think they are about to escape, just swap their
escape route for another alternate reality. Who knows, they may eventually
reach a "real world" whereby Microsoft software works ;o)
Having spent the past two days preparing a Citrix environment for a software
demo, and swearing at NT Terminal server till I'm blue in the face, I'd find
that hard to believe :o)

cheers
Asan

Asan Tu wrote:
Then you should know better. Dig out your course notes
on the laws of Thermodynamics. For 1 point which law
best describes the problem?
I'd create a completely new universe (or simulation in the matrix) in
which entropy doesn't exist.

Alternatively, if I just want a power source that don't cost me
to much, I'd use "a form of fusion" that I already have access to.

If I have fusion, I most certainly do not need a human battery.

As a professional bullshiter, I'd be quite interested in hearing
an explaination that required the humans in order to achieve the
fusion process.

I'll grade them for three catagories - balls, practicality,
believability and will buy the winner a drink on Thursday!

See ya,

Adam

Adam Hattrell wrote:
Gives me an idea that.
Historical Note:
This man EARNED the esteemed title of "Bob Bullshitter"
doing what he does best.
Back to my idea.
Classical Fusion, as practised by the Sun.
Projects in today's society fail to achieve the critical level
of fusion. One of the problems being that no computer is
smart enough or fast enough to re-adjust the plasma flow to
prevent it from becoming unstable. Now for those programmers
among you who remember your maths just think for a moment
at how complicated and system intensive a ball catching
algorithm might be, adding a machine vision element and your
already into some serious processor usage.
Humans can catch balls (see this one has balls) with relative
ease.
By connecting a large quantity of human brains (using large
umbilical cords to the back of the head as seen in the film
the Matrix) you could harness a small portion of each brain
to help with plasma flow regulation whilst keeping each
person emmersed in a realistic fantasy world with other
connections to the six senses.
The resulting system would be reasonably error tolerant
(one brain more or less making not much difference) and
above all easy to maintain (feed them with their own dead).


Darren
(Do anything for beer Bob)

Darren Snee wrote:
Darrens entry:

Neural Net to control plasma flow.

Balls: 2 (Fairly straightlace theory)
Practicality:9 (Should be technically feasible)
Believability:6 (Why do you need to keep the bodies, and why
can't you build a machine to do the same job?)

Total:17 / 30.

Highest score so far...

Adam Hattrell said:
[snip]

Switching from science fiction to REAL SCIENCE for the moment...

One of the most efficient electricity-generating schemes in operation today
is the one where you have a wood-fired power station next to a sustainable
forest of fairly quick-growing trees. The trees soak up the water, sunlight,
some CO2, and probably some nutirients and stuff, and they grow big. They're
then cut down, chopped, and basically turned into something resembling
sawdust, which is then burned, to produce heat and CO2. The CO2, or an
equivalent ammount, is fairly neatly re-used by the nearby trees. The heat
produces steam, which powers turbines, which make mains electricity.
Essentially, it's a form of solar power, but growing and burning trees in
the process. In terms of percentages, it's not very efficient - a lot of the
heat of the boiler is lost, a lot of the power of the steam is not converted
into rotational energy, a lot of the rotational energy isn't converted into
electricity. It is, however, still far more dependable, efficient, cheaper,
and cleaner than many other popular forms of electricity generation.

Coal, oil, and gas power produce a lot of CO2 and pollutants and things that
aren't quickly recycled, and of course use up resources that won't last
forever. Nuclear is very very efficient, but expensive to clean up.
Hydroelectric is pretty cheap, and very controllable, but depends on enough
rain, which doesn't always happen. Wind power depends on enough wind, which
doesn't always happen. solar, same stor. These renewable forests use up as
much CO2 as they produce, and are comparitively cleaner than coal and oil
anyway. You need sun once in a while, but not RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU NEED POWER.
They're a Good Thing.

Now back to Science Fiction...

Tell me why something KIND OF similar, but using humans instead of trees,
and something more direct than a steam-powered-turbine, should be any worse?
After the trees have gone, and most of the rest of the planet's resources
dried up, maybe some form of human energy might be the most efficient energy
source remaining?

Sure, blending the bodies of the dead to feed the living, IN ITSELF would
NOT be enough. Let's not talk about perpetual-motion-machines... You need to
get your energy from SOMEWHERE... but maybe combined with some other form of
food input?

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

Darren Snee wrote:
There is an alternative explaination out there on the net that
does fit all the facts.

It's simply this. Neo is the biggest dupe in the world.

Morpheous and his terrorists are exactly that. The machines are
really there to protect and server humans. The humans really did
destroy the environment, and are kept in the matrix as a way
of keeping them alive until such time as the damage can be
reversed.

You'll note that the agents go out of their way to protect the
humans. It's the terrorist who gun down innocent civilians in
the pursuit of their "liberation".

The complete bollox explaination of humans as a power source, is
deliberately poor, because it's the feeble rantings of a madman.

I live in hope that the next movie in the sequence will show this.
Sadly my cynical nature tells me that it won't happen!

See ya,

Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Hattrell <adamh@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Well, that was fun!
errrrrr how does that explain why the Agents will quite simply, without
remorse,
swap human bodies to the closest free one, every time their present host is
killed?
Doesn't sound very protective to me :o)
Well, we're getting a full blown trilogy aren't we, so we shall see :o)

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Asan Tu wrote:
It depends what happens to the occupant - for all we know, the human could
be "suspended" until the Agent has finished with the body. Thats why when
the Agent is "killed" it reverts back to the previous physical shell.

Chris

---

christ@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Turner <christ@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Well, that was fun!
Yes, but the previous physical shell is quite clearly dead (SWAT guy shot by
mullered by chain gun, Chopper Pilot shot through head)

AGENT SMITH
The future is our world, Morpheus.
The future is our time.

AGENT SMITH
There is another organism on this
planet that follows the same
pattern. Do you know what it is?
A virus.

AGENT SMITH
Human beings are a disease, a
cancer of this planet. You are a
plague. And we are... the cure.


Something to think about?
cheers
Asan

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Asan Tu wrote:
Oh yes, those people are quite clearly dead. I'm talking about the people
that the Agents take over briefly, whilst going about their duties.

For example at the beginning when they're chasing Trinity over the
rooftops and she escapes - suddenly the Agent is in the body of a truck
driver. What happened to the previous body? I'd assume that the original
human regained control of it.
The way he's talking, it gives me the impression that he resents having to
work for/under the humans. It also looks like his views aren't shared by
the other agents, because he deliberately cuts himself off from them.
They also appeared shocked/surprised by his actions when they return.

Chris

---

christ@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Turner <christ@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Well, that was fun!
time
:o)
could
when
shot by
Most probably, yes.
<rooftop scene, Agent Jones points his gun at Neo, and is about to pull the
trigger>
AGENT JONES
Only human...

oh yes, he sounds very caring :o)

The alternative viewpoint about the Agents being protectors of the human
race, is an interesting one. Would you say that the Empire in the star wars
universe is only going around enforcing people's freedoms and Galactic law
from a band of small renegade rebels, for the good of the universe?

cheers
Asan

wars
The empire is also (for example) a bunch of Xenophobic so and sos. Play
spot the alien on an Imperial Starship. For other examples see the Thrawn
books, and In the service of the Empire.

And of course we have the cold blooded murder of several billion Alderanians
in SW and the Military Coup on Bespin in ESB ....

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Ayres
payres@
www.netcomuk.co.uk/~payres
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Yes, but the Empire was Lucas being frightened of Communists (note faceless,
uniformed state). The lack of non-Asian aliens is done for the same reasons,
to show how mean and nasty Communists are. RE the Alderians: standard
exercise of repressive state apparatus; in order to maintain power status
quo, scare your enemies witless.

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Ayres <payres@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Well, that was fun!
Aaah.. but I'm afraid that logic may not follow. You could play spot the
toilet or shower, with similar results.. We can't assume that the empire
didn't bathe (or poo) and stunk to high heaven just because we didn't see
any hygiene facilities. Also as Eddie Izzard said, we never see the Death
star canteen, but I bet they have one (complete with stereotypical canteen
workers).

Linette Voller
-------------------------------------
Linette.Voller@
Serious Fun Research Laboratory
Brunel University
Tel: +44 (0) 1784 431341 x.244
Fax: +44 (0)1784 472879
Phonetxt: linette@
------------------------------------

I forget, but was it either Darth Vader or the Emperor who had a group of
Nohgri bodyguards?

Been a while since I read the books, last one being vision of the future.
Any new books that you would recommend, phillip? Getting bored on the train
to work now...

cheers
Asan
Play

Darth Vadewr had the Nohgri bodyguards, which Admiral Thawn (spelt
right?) used as well. Thawn was also an 'alien' as well...

<END>

I suspect that we never saw non-human stormtroopers etc. because it was
cheaper to make them human-shaped for the film. Also, I suspect (don't laugh
now) that the stormtroopers were supposed to be the crack squads. They
weren't regular police guys. Since the Emperor was human, it seems plausible
to me that his most loyal and favoured troops would also be human.

I don't think the emperor was xenophobic. I never quite worked out whether
Darth Maul was supposed to be human or not, but I always vaguelly assumed
not. You don't have an alien apprentice if you hate aliens.

Death Star canteens were probably staffed with droids, because it's easier
to get them security clearance. It's a similar problem to Area 51 in the US.
All staff are ultra-high security clearance, and go to work on a private jet
every day. That then means you've got to use specialist contractors to send
you cleaning staff. It's got to be a real pain. Far easier to use droids,
who still clean toilets, but don't require absurdly high pay to do so, or
require vast amounts of overtime whenever you leave the solar system. Option
three, of course, is that the troops do it themselves. I'm sure the
stormtrooper training camps are still full of grunts cleaning toilet bowls
with toothbrushes every time their body armour isn't polished enough. It's
part of the discipline - you can't have an army that refuses to do anything
a bit icky.

Dominic

"Love is deaf, as well as blind" [Merlin - Excalibur]

From: "Thomas, Dominic" <DOMINIC.THOMAS@>
To: "'chat@'" <chat@>
Subject: RE: Well, that was fun!
Date sent: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:18:23 -0000
Send reply to: chat@
Best one I heard was that the people who run the snack bars at the
CIa are recruited from a local blind school. Not sure if it is true
mind....



Jon

That just reminds me of a radio sketch featuring Jon Pertwee as the Doctor
(I'm doing an essay so naturally i'm bored alright!?) with two of the
Doctor's assistants coming to him and resigning. It ran something like this


Doctor - resigning?

Asst 1 - The TARDIS is so rubbish. There's nowhere to sit down.

Asst 2 - Yeah, and the Pizza company won't deliver to the fourth dimension.
We're starving and haven't eaten in weeks.

What relevence does this have to the ongoing debate? I have absolutely no
idea, but I thought people might like it...

I don't like writing essays OK?!

Adam
Spinster of the Parish of Englefield Green

Linette in reply to me:
2 ways you can approach this. Although not specifically mentioned in the
films the Empire's non human prejudice is mentioned in the books and the
comics - I previously named the Thrawn books and In the Emperor's Service
but the X Wing books are worth a look too.

Then compare the sizeable non human rebel presence in ROTJ - Mon Calamiri,
Sulustrians, Ishi Tibb's, Prune Faces, Ewoks and a Wookie - to the Imperial
forces.

(for bonus points name the 3 aliens seen on Imperial Vessels during the SW
Trilogy)

I'd also like to throw in the massacre of the Jawa crew in SW too....

Asan:
Neither. The Noghri were in debt to Vader for rescuing their planet, but
it was Thrawn (himself a non human) that was the Imperial that used them as
body guards
Good innit ?
Assuming that you've also read the Heir to the Empire Trilogy and Spectre of
the Past - the other Zahn novels ......

Any of the X-Wing books are good - especially the Michael Stackpole ones.
I can heartily recomend the comic series which is being collected together
as we speak - they've got as far as the Emperor's Service. After the
X-Wing series try I Jedi - again by Stackpole.

I haven't read Vector Prime yet - BUT I DO KNOW - and if you haven't (or
don't know) I wouldn't read Dark Tide: Onslaught before it. DT:O is a very
good book - the aliens are very well done, and I think I raved about the
tech at the time ....

Philip


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Ayres
payres@
www.netcomuk.co.uk/~payres
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Philip Ayres wrote:
I haven't read the X-Wing series but I did think that I Jedi was
particularly good. For those of you who like to mix your reading
with your gaming I Jedi can really set the scene for Jedi Knight
(Dark Forces II) as the characters have a lot in common. Also
Mara Jade turns up in the Expansion Mysteries of the Sith.

Back to books though, is there a sequel to I Jedi?
Although I think the author drags in main Star Wars film characters
with gay abandon and in such a way as to really get on my nerves when
he finally gets down to business he tells a fine story.

Darren
(closet Star Wars fanatic of Bob)

Apart from Chewbacca?
The only aliens I can recall would be the bounty hunters in ESB, and I don't
know their names.
That was just a natural desire to destroy the witnesses. If it was supposed
to be a sandpeople attack they couldn't leave jawas running about squeaking
about guys in white suits.

Dominic

"Time flies when you don't know what you're doing."

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Turner <christ@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Well, that was fun!
time
:o)
could
when
shot by
Most probably, yes.
<rooftop scene, Agent Jones points his gun at Neo, and is about to pull the
trigger>
AGENT JONES
Only human...

oh yes, he sounds very caring :o)

The alternative viewpoint about the Agents being protectors of the human
race, is an interesting one. Would you say that the Empire in the star wars
universe is only going around enforcing people's freedoms and Galactic law
from a band of small renegade rebels, for the good of the universe?

cheers
Asan

Asan Tu wrote:
True, but we also know that Neo has previously died in the matrix.
Through some mechanism that is made out to be all spiritual he
came back in a new form.

What if when people are killed in the matrix, they are just "reset"
and started out again with new lives? A kill is only fatal if
it happens whilst you are physically outside the Matrix.

The physical shells have to remain, as otherwise people start
questioning. But the host is alive and well (if brainwiped)
out there, somewhere. It would also explain to some extent
reincarnates who remember their previous life, they just
weren't properly wiped.

Who would therefore be the bad guys? The machines, who do their
best to minimise the "casualities", but know that they are at
least preserving lives, or the terrorist who believe that they
are in fact killing people?

See ya,

Adam

WHO CARES: IT'S JUST A FUCKING FILM!

In article <8EE7845D871BD311B0E900E0292A082658297D@>, "Brown T.W" <T.W.Brown@> wrote:
[...]

I see we have a *professional* film critic among us.

Thank you, noble one, for sharing with us your great insight. We will
eagerly await the further pearls of your wisdom as you deign to share them
with us lesser beings.

Such erudition. Such rare command of the language.

We are honoured.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
M (+44/0)7967 109779 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

> > > > > *******Danger Will Robinson, Spoilers approaching *********
Can anyone remember why the sun has been blocked out ?
As far as I recall it was following the large scale use of
Nukes and is the resulting dust cloud i.e. a "Nuclear winter".
Current research suggests that the dust cloud would only last
for a few years, not enough time for the Computers to need to
find a long term alternative energy source like the Humans.
Even if the dust cloud has/will last for centuries then
I would have thought the advanced tech the Computer has would
include mono-filament cables and superconductors which would easily
allow connections to low-orbital solar energy stations.
Also notice that All the escapees from the Matrix do not
look like people who have spent there entire lives motionless in a
fluid tank (.i.e. you at least expect them to have very little
muscle development).
All these are probably me just being picky but it does lead
to Paul's dodgey theory of the day:

The Matrix is not what Morpheous says at all. Instead it is a
computer controlled prison for dangerous inmates who have
been given life sentences. In the more humane World of the future
dangerous criminals are transferred to "the Matrix" where they
can live out their lives with a new personality in a computer
generated world. Presumably this would make Morpheous some sort
or terrorist or arch-criminal who is using Neo to free his friends
from prison.

I'll get me coat...

Paul (Bob)

"Ilsley, Paul G" wrote:
They didn't say. Only that the humans did it on purpose
to try and shut down the machines. The machines were
all solar powered at the time.
As I said, it fairly blatant bollox. Almost as if Morpheus doesn't
actually know what he's talking about...
I think they were supposed to be. That's why they had to rebuild
Neo's muscles. I suspect that if they'd realistically modeled a person
who'd spent their entire life in a box, people in the audience would have
been sick!
It's a nice theory. Morpheus could in fact, just be an inmate
who thinks he's escaped out, but is in actual fact, just stuck
in another level.

Perhaps when you get up through enough levels they let you back
out into society.

But is that real?

It's worth pointing out, that this is the sort of story that
Philip K Dick spent his entire life writing. There are P.K.D.
books in the library, if you really want to screw with your
minds prior to your exams!

See ya,

Adam

Sure. It all comes down to "do I enjoy it?". It doesn't need high-brow
artistic merit to be enjoyable.

I've certainly considered it a contender for the title, although I don't
think I ever formally made a decision.

And no, I'm not American.

Dominic

"Love is deaf, as well as blind" [Merlin - Excalibur]

From: simon@
Subject: Re: Well, that was fun!
To: chat@
Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:47:45 +0000
Send reply to: chat@

I'm going to defend myself first before I write this -
Some of what I am about to say is based on having read other
parts of this thread, but I am choosing to reply directly to this
posting as it offers the least technical jargon and the most focus on
storytelling.
There are also going to be some pretty hefty edits, my
apologies if anyone can't follow. Those who haven't seen "the
Matrix" might not want to read on, there are likely to be spoilers.
Pedantic point - film studies tends to regard "Thelma and
Louise" as a modern western, I'm not sure myself but it is a long
time since I've watched it.
I'd would also have issues with such a glib description of "the Crow" as it
has many aspect of a traditional romantic tragedy/revenge drama
and by that score has more in common with a hybrid of "Romeo
and Juliet/Unforgiven"
By contrast "Dark City" is a clear descendent of 70s paranoia
flicks like "the Conversation" or "the Paralax View", both of which
could possibly (very possibly) be read as SF, its visual look is a
product of its director and the same material would have appeared
quite different in other hands.
Please define substance for me - the plot of "Schindler's...." is
fairly insubstancial, but its weighty characters and details mask
this to a degree.

Arnie is a better actor than most
You haven't seen "End Of Days" have you?
Please bear in mind that the vast majority of the world's
population is nothing like as clued up as you about the mythology
surrounding the Batman character and have absolutely no time for
the kind of psychological development needed to do his character
justice in a 2-hour action movie. That Tim Burton got that film past
the studios is a triumph in itself.
Most people's only experience of Batman is the 60s TV show,
and once the Burton films started loosing money the studion
returned to that older template with disasterous results.
The term the studios prefer is streamlined. On paper, without
any sci-fi detailing, it would probably resemble an attempt to make
a movie about any rebel group of your choice. In the States at the
moment the terrorists of choice are the Colombian FARC....
Maybe, but not the most developed. In terms of doing the
unexpected he is beaten out of the running by Agent Smith, if only
on screen time. Some comics developing Cypher's past and dis-
illusionment would be nice though.
Welcome to the world. Movies, especially expensive ones like
"the Matrix", are made only in the knowledge that they WILL have
an audience (there are mistakes of course, its not an exact
science). Someone in the executive wing at Warners must have
woken up one morning and realised that the most powerful
economic group in the country had suddenly turned out to be
geeks.
It is a norm in mass communication texts to make sure that
the hero is a member of the prime tatget audience (the one that is
likely to generate the most revenue) and since geeks also have a
tendency to keep going back to events they have enjoyed,
marketing a "geek as superhero" was pretty certain to be a licence
to print money. For comparisons, look at the staggering success of
"Easy Rider" amongst proto hippies and "American Graffitti" with
second generation baby boomers.

"The Crow" is in a style that I am fairly indifferent
Curiosity, are you a fan "GoodFellas" and if so please describe
to me over private email what you consider its style to be?
There is an argument that style can actually be a part of
substance in film-making, the example usually given being Michael
Mann ("Manhunter", "Heat", "the Insider"). I'm not sure where I
stand on that one, but I do know that we should be able to stand
outside the style of the text to judge its merits. I'm not a huge fan
of Kubrik stylistically, but it doesn't stop me enjoying his movies.

> > I think you really need a more conclusive demonstration of why
See above
The way some of this has got heated and defensive suggests
that those who dislike "the Crow" consider an attack on their
viewpoint to be an attack on them. A poor precedent....


Jon

simon@ wrote:
Different strokes. I can quite happily enjoy a film without substance.
I do have to like the style. But I wouldn't define a film as "crap"
just because it has no substance.

I'm suprised you like Blade though. It has no more substance than
The Crow...
I'll grant you T2, my weasel is simply that that wasn't the film Luke
named. For the record, I rate T2 way above the other 3 (4 if you stack
in the crow) films mentioned.
Sorry being born in the 70's, I only really started watching movies in
the very late 80's, if the term action had a different meaning before,
I can't really be held responsible!

The crow has a fairly simple story, are you saying that simple implies
bad for you?

Depends what you mean by disjointed. If you mean the camera work,
(multiple shots, from different perspectives of each scene) then I'd
say that does fall into the category of style. It was deliberately
shot that way to produce a comic book frame effect.

If, as I suspect, you mean the story then I'm gonna need an example
to see what you mean. From my perspective the story progresses along
just fine. The characters are developed along the way. We learn
about the girl, her mother. We get some background on the cop.
Even the bad guys get some screen time to be developed.
Well I'm certaily biased. Perhaps that's why I can't see where
your coming from.

I would love to go to this, but will probably not manage this year..

21/4/2000-24/4/2000 2KON
UK National SF Convention. Type: GENERAL/NATIONAL. Loc: Central Hotel,
Glasgow, Scotland. GoH: Guy Gavriel Kay, Deborah Turner Harris, Katherine
Kurtz. Theme: Celtic SF and Fantasy. Notes: Science programme will include a
focus on "Science Fiction in Fact: Real science following science fiction
ideas." Also an intent to show projected films, instead of a video stream,
plus a special series of programme items aimed at the 8 to 15 year olds.
Contact: 2Kon, 30 Woodburn Terrace, St Andrews KY16 8BA. Att: 25 (20
unwaged) Supp: 15
E-mail: 2Kon@
Web: http://www-theory.cs.st-and.ac.uk/2Kon


Jenny Gould

---

jenny@ killercon 2000 secretary
http://www.onechip.co.uk/jenny 4th / 5th March 2000
01784 431998 07970 506908 www.gamesoc.org.uk/killercon

"Share and Enjoy"
-Marketing Division, Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
-- Johnny Hart

and
Not being telepathic it is difficult to determine what your intentions were
when writing, only what you wrote - and e-mail is well known as easily
misinterpreted / difficult to protray emphasis & sarcasm. So this is what I
commented on. I guessed it was probably meant to be humourous, but
commented anyway because I was in a bitchy mood. It's rare, but it does
happen.
I stand corrected - I had been misinformed and appologise for distributing
erroneous information. However, I have heard this from numerous sources, so
you may want to hire a publicist to re-build your public image, or you could
just revel in your current infamy.
they
this
Perhaps I misheard at the AGM, or perhaps you were in a similarly bitchy
mood at the time. But we do agree that the range of films is good.
This is an opinion on which we differ. I would agree it's not the best film
in existance, but I think it certainly rates above most of the complete
dross out there, and just being old doesn't automatically make it unworthy.
It may not pull in the same audiences as a big name blockbuster, but right
now there are not that many big, recent release sci-fi/fantasy/horror films
that would act as crowd pullers that have not already been shown this year.
I'd far rather see a film that was voted for than the (admittedly excellent)
Matrix yet *again*.
is
If that's a response to one of my comments, I think it's one that suffered
from e-mail misinterpretation. possibly because I referred to you as "the
original poster", as I couldn't remember your first name at the time and had
deleted it from the quoted section of my post.
Yup, that seems to be the main reason for chat. Did I stop you replying or
delete or censor your post? Nope - free speech not having been banned I
spoke up because I disagreed with the comments you made. If free speech had
been banned I would probably not have been allowed to. You are perfectly
entitled to voice your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
Hmm... although I personally agree with you about the Matrix having a more
complex plot, I also know people who despise the film, because in their mind
the plot was incoherent, full of holes and downright silly. I sometimes
even agree with them, particularly about the slight limpness of the ending -
although I prefer to give it the benefit ouf the doubt as the "I love you"
"okay, so now I'm indestructable and can trash the bad guys" ending is
obliquely referred to earlier in the plot. There is more to life than a
convoluted plot.

<maybe crow spoilers, BTW>

The crow, in my mind has lost something in the transfer from the comics, but
still has more to it than the obvious plot. He's not just killing for
revenge, but to protect sarah, whose mother has fallen in with "the wrong
crowd" and is dragging her in too. Perhaps some of this is easier to spot
when you've read the comics & novels, but there's definately more to it than
"they killed me, I kill them". It's a shame there's no uncut version
available, as in this draven's power is nothing to do with the crow - he
becomes mortal when he is using his power for anything other than avenging
himself, and that's why he loses his power in the church - he's using his
power to help sarah, not to avenge himself. The bird being shot is just
because the bad guys have leapt to the wrong conclusion.

---

"Any PC built after 1985 has the storage
capacity to house an evil spirit,"
--Reverend Jim Peasboro

Adrian, etc...

Adrian Long wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation, which I rather like. However,
the film certainly doesn't give that impression. The "Morphine is
bad for you" scene, certainly wouldn't fit.

I wouldn't say that the bad guys have completely leapt to the wrong
conclusion though. The Crow is the source of his power, it's just
that it's rather difficult to stop an avatar of a totem spirit by
just shooting it. Equally from the second film, capturing said
avatar and tapping it for power is a good way of ensuring that
the Totem spots you and becomes mildly irked.

Still I've been meaning for ages to pick up the original comics, maybe
now is a good time.

Cheers,

Adam

I vaguelly recall that there was quite a lot changed from the original
intention of the film, and indeed an entire (supernatural) character in a
hat cut.

There are various Crow websites that give the full story, but if I remember
correctly, it was supposed to be that when he finished the task he was there
for that his powers left him. i.e. after the deaths of the pack who killed
him and his fiancee.

(Film original concept, not comic strip, which I've never read.)

I'll try and look up the details when I've time.

Dominic

There are two things you need to know for a full and happy life:
1) Never tell anyone everything you know.
2)