»Sofia Stewart, Investigation, Results and talking to her«

What were you saying again?

Support the NRA!

Who cares if she wrote it or not.

Did she draw up the storyboards?
Did she do all the graphic design?
Did she tell the cameramen what shots to use?
Did she instruct the decoration of the backgrounds of sets?
Did she run auditions for the actors and actresses?
Did she do anything at all in relation to the movie besides (possibly) provide an idea?

I think you'll find the answer to all of the above questions is no. The story may not have been completely original, but then, how many stories do not use influence?
These movies were created by the Wachowskis, conceived by them, and the end product is their baby. I'm not saying that they didn't steal an idea, but they still put the movies together, and spent 8-10 years working solidly on their idea, which really makes them the deserved owners of their creation at the end of the day. This isn't about loyality to anyone, it's about what I can see as the end result. It's possible that Sofia wins, and if so, so be it. It won't change the name of the directors, the producer, the actors/actresses, and the many many other people that did work to make this Trilogy the success that it is.

I agree that it was a hit movie, but was it really an artistic triumph? Did it say anything new?
Or do you all, when you hear the word "artistic," reach for your guns?

I believe that something is artistic if after people have viewed it, a good length of time later, they are still discussing it. And here we are, discussing the Matrix, nearly 2 years after the last film was first broadcast, and over 6 years since the original was first broadcast.

To me, that is art. If we are still discussing the Matrix in 20 years time, then yes, it will definitely be art.

By the way,

A woman is being charged in California with threatening to kill somebody on an AOL forum.

Quote:

The federal charge against Dera Marie Jones stems from a posting on an America Online message board ...Jones told FBI agents she was "just kidding" and soon began receiving threats herself... (AP)

This is the very same FBI who apparently started the ball rolling for the mess we have been talking about in this forum by lending credence to Sophia Stewart's claim of copyright infringement. Do they really have any place in matters such as these?
Aren't they kind of stuck in the past, not really understanding how derivative pop culture has become, so that nothing is really new?
Also, I'm not saying death threats on forums shouldn't be investigated (and no, nothing I have seen or posted on this forum constitutes a death threat), but should pranksterism really be a crime?
I think unless you are actually found to be in preparation to carry out such a threat, no charges should ever be filed.
But maybe I'm just covering my ass.

ryanlewisjones wrote:

I believe that something is artistic if after people have viewed it, a good length of time later, they are still discussing it.

So you believe the Holocaust was a work of art?

always better to take a death threat seriously then to dissmiss it and see people die later on. Unless it's in the context of a joke, the "what am I going to do with you" type of idea then I think you have to at least check everything out. Then again, if I were to say, I hope you fall off a cliff, is that a death threat? or just the ramblings of an angry peon who isn't going to do anything and he knows it.

Art by the way, is a matter of perspective. I'm not sure it said anything really new per say, but it presented the same old questions we've (humanity) always been struggling with in a new way. I should qualify that and say that for many of us it presented those same questions in a new way, you may have thought this has been done before I dunno. Anyways, art isn't intended to make everyone happy. And if everyone is happy, you're probably doing something wrong lol (just my take on it). As Wayne's World once said, "I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees."

the Holocaust is a human event that happned in the real world. Some people might think it's a work of art (nazi's), but most of us see it as an atrocity that is now part of our collective human history. Then again, there are films covering the Holocaust, and they would be considered works of art... does this then make the Holocaust itself also a work of art or just the vehicle used by an artist to portray his vision. This argument could go in circles forever, art is in the eye of the beholder, just leave it at that.

hexediter wrote:

the Holocaust is [an] event that happned in the real world.

Is it performance art, then?

hexediter wrote:

Some people might think it's a work of art... but most of us see it as an atrocity

Some people see Picasso as an atrocity.


Your clarification is a failure.

eh... I enjoy a good joke, just my nature though. Anyways, how serious can I be if I'm quoting Wayne's World to support my point of view?

transio wrote:

hexediter wrote: the Holocaust is [an] event that happned in the real world. Is it performance art, then? hexediter wrote: Some people might think it's a work of art... but most of us see it as an atrocity Some people see Picasso as an atrocity. Your clarification is a failure.

Yea I know, I tried from my point of view but it was just that, my point of view. Which is why I wrote the disclaimer at the end of my post and why I said this argument could go in circles all day, which you so kindly have demonstrated for me.

Wayne's World has Nietzsche written all over it!

don't forget, he quotes Kierkegaard in Cantonese!

hexediter wrote:

Which is why I wrote the disclaimer at the end of my post and why I said this argument could go in circles all day, which you so kindly have demonstrated for me.

Argument? We seem to be involved in two different conversations. I'm simply asking for a definition of art that doesn't include the Holocaust. If you're incapable of providing one, then I must assume that you believe the Holocaust was a work of art. Saying "art is this [except the holocaust which was an atrocity]" is not an acceptable response.

hexediter wrote:

This argument could go in circles forever, art is in the eye of the beholder, just leave it at that.

LOL, I didn't read this far through your post the first time around.

Fair enough, touchy subject. Consider it dropped.

Not to keep going in circles, but in the eye of THIS beholder, Art is something done with the intent of pushing people, expanding the boundaries of the mind, or breaking our sociocentric binds.

The holocaust was not art because it was simply done with the intent of exterminating a culture.

this is the part where we are supposed to link the eye of the beholder to the third eye and marvel that they both say eye, and thus it means Sophia Stewart is the oracle and is going to win her case because god told her so.

In other knews I think you (transio) basically just expanded on my own definition of art, so turns out we were in agreement all along, who would have known.

hexediter wrote:

Sophia Stewart is the oracle and is going to win her case because god told her so.

Sophia Stewart eat so much, when she heard it was chilly outside, she ran out there with a bowl and spoon.

When Sophia Stewart say she gonna turn her life around, she gotta make two trips!

Origami was invented by the FBI during World War II as a racist plot to convince people that the Japanese were disposable, like paper.
Don't believe me? I have proof!

zombie42 wrote:

In reference to knnknn's message about copyrighting thoughts: I'm no lawyer but I've heard a term 'intellectual properties' which seems to imply that if you have written or graphic proof of some idea you have and when it came into being you would have a case for copyright infringement. I don't know; just a thought. Also is "matrix_explained_sucks" the handle for Joel Silver? I've seen some interviews with Mr Silver and he is quite arrogant about the Matrix and the "boys". He said in one interview for Starlog essentially that if people don't get the Matrix as a trilogy then they are just not very bright. "matrix_sucks" seems to have that same hostile attitude to people who question the quality of the films. If so many people don't get 2 or 3 maybe it's because they just don't make sense compared to the first film? Maybe the reclusive brothers should crawl out from under a rock and justify or explain what they created.

Plane Sailing wrote:

Excellent research job. .... her "plot" here seems to have been lifted straight out of the Bible book of Revelation - a woman is going to give birth, the bad guy "morning star" (a name given to lucifer, portrayed in this part of revelation as the dragon) is waiting to kill the babe but is prevented, the woman flees off to find protection for 3.5 years... Is this science fiction or biblical epic I wonder

Yeah, kudos...nice work strife. Fur sure about the biblical aspects -- 1) BBC News spotted a great one: Neo Anderson = New Son of Man (from the Greek <i>andros</i> meaning "man", Andros + son); 2)
Zion is obvious; 3)we are all enslaved by a mental prison that we cannot see; 4)Son of Man must die and be reborn in order to grant humans salvation (Neo is shot and comes back to life) ....many more parallels that I probably haven't even caught.

As far as Sophia goes, that REALLY explains why the second and third movies stunk up the screen compared to the first one.

Clearly, they stole from this poor Black woman. She submitted a copy of her story to the Bros. directly. Afterwards, they merely took the story apart and re-wrote it to try and hide what they did.

These guys are thieves. I want to see them in prison. Will anyone else here help me to somehow frame them and put them in jail?