Kevin's Watch

While I loathe to step on anyone's tender sensibilities, I thought that the end of the last Matrix movie (battle between Smith and NEO) was very much like the last battle between Covenant and the Despiser on a very basic, conceptual level. Specifically with the way the battle ended if you consider the Arch of Time as a metaphor for the matrix.

BTW, I am NOT a huge Matrix fan. Didn't quite see what the fuss was about.

Thoughts?

I'm sure comparisons could be made between any number of myths/religions/movies/fantasy stories/etc. Each one just has its own twist in one way or another.

They all have one basic theme...the battle of good vs evil. But, I can see where you are going with this Gunslinger. Covenant sacrifices himself to Foul, for the greater good. Just as Neo sacrificed himself to Smith.

Damm I haven't seen Martix III yet! I should never have looked at this topic!

EEEEEEEKKKKK...Danlo!! I'm sorry!!!!

Hey danlo, if you haven't read the Bible yet....

I have smartass! We ALL go to hell!

A Gunslinger wrote:While I loathe to step on anyone's tender sensibilities, I thought that the end of the last Matrix movie (battle between Smith and NEO) was very much like the last battle between Covenant and the Despiser on a very basic, conceptual level. Specifically with the way the battle ended if you consider the Arch of Time as a metaphor for the matrix.

BTW, I am NOT a huge Matrix fan. Didn't quite see what the fuss was about.

Thoughts?

Close, and the fact that neo and smith were one and the same.

And I suppose some kind of comparison could be made between the Sunbane-ravaged Land and the Smith-ravaged Matrix (is it a desert Smith or *snigger* a fertile Smith? ). And Neo, like TC was a "second coming"...and Neo, like TC, gradually learned the use of his power... You could draw all kinds of parallels with a bit of effort

I know the Wachowski brothers are tight-lipped about their sources, but it would certainly please me if I found out they've read The Chronicles. Since The Matrix is a synthesis of many different things, who knows? It's possible.

But comparing two such differing mediums--film and literature--is problematic enough when the source is the same, as in The Lord Of The Rings. It becomes a feat of mental gymnastics to try and correlate the universe of the Matrix with the universe of the Chronicles: these are two quite different worlds existing in quite different mediums. I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect Matrix Revolutions with White Gold Wielder. If it was such a clear "rip-off" then where are the rumblings from SRD or his publishers about possible legal action against the Wachowskis?

If anyone is getting the impression that I'm "favoring" Revolutions over WGW here, let me say that's not the case at all and besides, that's not the point.

Now for the value judgment: applying some arbitrary standard of "absolute" artistic value regardless of medium, I would say that Matrix Revolutions falls well short of White Gold Wielder. In my view, Revolutions is not a convincing conclusion to the Matrix trilogy, whereas WGW is a very convincing one to the Second Chronicles.

As for why the fuss over The Matrix, I believe that the original film was the single biggest watershed moment in sci-fi cinema since Star Wars in '77. When I consider how much The Matrix has influenced the look of film since its release, and how iconic its characters have become in pop culture, I think it's a feat comparable only to what Star Wars achieved.

I see more of the differences between the two battles rather than similarities.

First of all, it is more difficult to see pure good and evil in The Matrix. Are machines inherently evil? Is there an inherent difference in the worth of a computerized intelligence vs human intelligence? (What if Data had showed up to help Agent Smith?)

More importantly, the Matrix ends in the usual "fist-a-cuffs" seen at the end of most sci-fi adventures. Kirk goes after that cosmic bad guy, Picard slugs a Klingon, etc. Neo only wins his battle by getting even more power by some sort of hook-up to the energy of the machines. He wins by wiping out his opponent. That would be more similar to the end of The Power That Preserves than White Gold Wielder.

On the other hand, White Gold Wielder doesn't end with a battle but with a surrender, much more like the end of the New Testament story of Jesus than the shoot-out at OK corral. Covenant never even strikes out at Foul, he simply prevents his expression of power and thus lets him destroy himself.

Thus I feel that White Gold Wielder is a much more profound,and ultimately interesting/inspiring, work than most of the stuff we read elsewhere. (The Lord of the Rings also has an ending not so dependant on pure physical triumph).

Absolutely. As I said, it's possible to draw any number of parallels or vague similarities if you try hard enough, but the common themes aren't just common to these two stories, but to countless stories and fables and whatnot.

My point is - yes, there are similarities (and I enjoy this kind of discussion - it can be fun) but I don't for one moment think there's any significant connection between the two, and certainly no form of plagiarism.

Matrixman wrote:I know the Wachowski brothers are tight-lipped about their sources, but it would certainly please me if I found out they've read The Chronicles. Since The Matrix is a synthesis of many different things, who knows? It's possible.

But comparing two such differing mediums--film and literature--is problematic enough when the source is the same, as in The Lord Of The Rings. It becomes a feat of mental gymnastics to try and correlate the universe of the Matrix with the universe of the Chronicles: these are two quite different worlds existing in quite different mediums. I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect Matrix Revolutions with White Gold Wielder. If it was such a clear "rip-off" then where are the rumblings from SRD or his publishers about possible legal action against the Wachowskis?

If anyone is getting the impression that I'm "favoring" Revolutions over WGW here, let me say that's not the case at all and besides, that's not the point.

Now for the value judgment: applying some arbitrary standard of "absolute" artistic value regardless of medium, I would say that Matrix Revolutions falls well short of White Gold Wielder. In my view, Revolutions is not a convincing conclusion to the Matrix trilogy, whereas WGW is a very convincing one to the Second Chronicles.

As for why the fuss over The Matrix, I believe that the original film was the single biggest watershed moment in sci-fi cinema since Star Wars in '77. When I consider how much The Matrix has influenced the look of film since its release, and how iconic its characters have become in pop culture, I think it's a feat comparable only to what Star Wars achieved.

Another excellent post by Matrixman. I agree with alot of what you say there.

Ur-Vile wrote:

Matrixman wrote:I know the Wachowski brothers are tight-lipped about their sources, but it would certainly please me if I found out they've read The Chronicles. Since The Matrix is a synthesis of many different things, who knows? It's possible.

But comparing two such differing mediums--film and literature--is problematic enough when the source is the same, as in The Lord Of The Rings. It becomes a feat of mental gymnastics to try and correlate the universe of the Matrix with the universe of the Chronicles: these are two quite different worlds existing in quite different mediums. I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect Matrix Revolutions with White Gold Wielder. If it was such a clear "rip-off" then where are the rumblings from SRD or his publishers about possible legal action against the Wachowskis?

If anyone is getting the impression that I'm "favoring" Revolutions over WGW here, let me say that's not the case at all and besides, that's not the point.

Now for the value judgment: applying some arbitrary standard of "absolute" artistic value regardless of medium, I would say that Matrix Revolutions falls well short of White Gold Wielder. In my view, Revolutions is not a convincing conclusion to the Matrix trilogy, whereas WGW is a very convincing one to the Second Chronicles.

As for why the fuss over The Matrix, I believe that the original film was the single biggest watershed moment in sci-fi cinema since Star Wars in '77. When I consider how much The Matrix has influenced the look of film since its release, and how iconic its characters have become in pop culture, I think it's a feat comparable only to what Star Wars achieved.

Another excellent post by Matrixman. I agree with alot of what you say there.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that the Matrix was a "rip off". A poor selection of words, I meant that M3 borrowed conceptually in the way with which Neo's surrender brought Smith's defeat to bear.

I agree that the 1st moivie was definitely a ground-breaker!!!

We discussed this very point in the Matrix Revolutions thread in the General Discussion forum.

And MM is absolutely correct as far as the impact that the first Matrix film had on filmaking and pop culture. When I first say The Matrix I realized that I had never seen anything like that before.

A Gunslinger wrote:I meant that M3 borrowed conceptually in the way with which Neo's surrender brought Smith's defeat to bear.

I suspect both based their approaches to some extent on a philosophy that is floating around our culture at the moment. 20 years ago (WGW publication), the philosophy was much less well-known or influential than it is now.