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

Yakko and Wakko, the Warner Brothers?

ryanlewisjones wrote:

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 tell you what, I hope someone steals your story, and makes billions off of it, and they give you the same crap you just typed above. I will be the first to remind you of your hypocracy.

You remind me of the secretly gay republican politicians that are vehemently anti-gay in public (supporting all sorts of anti-gay legislation) and then when they are outed, they are crying about an anti-DEMOCRATIC conspiracy to humilate them and take away their rights.

They stole the script, they profited off the script, they are paying for the theft. I don't care if Sophia didn't draw a single stick figure. She is the writer and the creator of the story. Period.

In fact you insult writers, and you remind us all as to why hollywood scripts in general are so crappy. You discourage creativity and innovation. It's so funny because you in my view would be the first to cry out against rap music sampling older rock and roll tracks in their beats. Same old "whitey can't respect a black person's originality"

You have to do the same old thing, minimize the impact, or the relevance of the black woman's work in order to feel comfortable with the status-quo (white guys get the credit for the simple fact they are white).

Nice rear-end action support.

i think hes saying something else that you missed...

a story and a movie are two totally different things. they may be related, but they are not the same.

osirica, you dont like "whiteys", do you?

allone wrote:

i think hes saying something else that you missed... a story and a movie are two totally different things. they may be related, but they are not the same. osirica, you dont like "whiteys", do you?

I don't like people that justify wrong doing against other people, then cover it up with fake disgusting forms of excuses.

Seriously why play dumb? The movie was created around the story like all movies. WHy are you trying to create a world where movie writers get no credit for their work and are not respected? Why go through all of that illogical positioning on the issue?

I believe it's because you don't like the fact that she is black. I can find no other explanation that makes any sense based on the experiences throughout the present day. Maybe because she is a woman also. I do not know.

YOu say the movie and story are related, but they are "totally different". You are kind of playing a semantic game at this point. I will end it with this: The script that a movie is based is the foundation of the movie. Without it, there is no movie.

So I guess I hope that she writes something, gets it stolen, and you go ahead and tell her the same thing you told me. In fact, every writer who has tried to sue for credit and compensation for their work, I am sure you have no respect for that. But I am a writer and I find the comments appalling and I don't expect that to be consistent with their positions on other issues, "(Copyright infringement, creative license, etc).

It's wrong. Period. Why else are you trying to justify it. She has irrefutable evidence. You may as well tell me that the world is flat.

osirica wrote:

YOu say the movie and story are related, but they are "totally different". You are kind of playing a semantic game at this point. I will end it with this: The script that a movie is based is the foundation of the movie. Without it, there is no movie.

i never said the movie and the story are related...infact, from what i have seen of her story, they are not related at all. well, except the phrase "one" and people dressed in black.

i said a story and a movie are two totally different things. thats all. and they are.

allone wrote:

osirica wrote: YOu say the movie and story are related, but they are "totally different". You are kind of playing a semantic game at this point. I will end it with this: The script that a movie is based is the foundation of the movie. Without it, there is no movie. i never said the movie and the story are related...infact, from what i have seen of her story, they are not related at all. well, except the phrase "one" and people dressed in black. i said a story and a movie are two totally different things. thats all. and they are.

Well you have not seen enough of the script to make an informed opinion, that's all. She describes in her interviews and you can also see the information she allows to be presented on other websites regarding it. Again, you mentioning that a story and a movie are totally different is inconsequential, because it's not relevant.

A movie needs a STORY to work. A movie is based on a story. You are not making any sense when you say "A movie and a story are totally different." It's just more "parry parley"

allone wrote:

osirica wrote: YOu say the movie and story are related, but they are "totally different". You are kind of playing a semantic game at this point. I will end it with this: The script that a movie is based is the foundation of the movie. Without it, there is no movie. i never said the movie and the story are related...infact, from what i have seen of her story, they are not related at all. well, except the phrase "one" and people dressed in black. i said a story and a movie are two totally different things. thats all. and they are.

Let me cut to the chase. When people take illogical positions, there is always a technique used, when evidence to support your position is impossible. Usually it's the same routine. Try to re-explain what common sense has already made clear. We all know a story and movie are not the same, but any idiot knows a movie contains a story (even movies with horrible stories, and other forms of expressionist filmmaking, there is a story somewhere that allows the film maker and audience to go from one scene to the next).
To have a long discussion about how there are some movies out there that do not contain a story (which i would bet you would try to do) is an exercise of futility.

We all know that THIS movie has a story and we all know where THIS story came from. You are responding to justify what? Why she shouldn't be paid? To postulate that somehow the Wachowski's somehow "coiencidentally" made up a story that is similar to a story they received 5 years before from Sophia? What?

osirica wrote:

We all know that THIS movie has a story and we all know where THIS story came from. You are responding to justify what? Why she shouldn't be paid? To postulate that somehow the Wachowski's somehow "coiencidentally" made up a story that is similar to a story they received 5 years before from Sophia? What?

yes, the movies have a story (one that Sophia says that she does not understand...she says that she does not understand part 2 and 3). no we do not know where the story came from. one person says one thing, another person says another...but if we believe the Wachowski's over Sophia...we are racist. it just might be that they created it on their own, believe it or not...a lot of people have created stories on their own that resemble other stories.

how many people responded to the ad that they placed? do you think that they (themselves) read each and every single submission? can she prove that she sent a copy of her work to them? i can say that i mailed a script to someone too, its not hard. there is no proof.

from what is available of her "proof" i cant believe her.

you still havent answered if you like "whiteys" or not...

Hello All,
This is my first post. I found I had to comment after reading some of the misinformation in this forum. First, Sophia Stewarts book is about nine chapters long. Her book was copyrighted in 1981 I believe. The information she has put forth in her book is amazing.

I thought she was nothing but a liar when the story first came out. Now I know she is not lying. Her book starts with the machines trying to come back and kill the baby to prevent him from growing up and leading the resistance. It ends with the machines putting humans in pods and using them as energy. There is no way you can read any part of that book and not understand how her ideas were stolen. Sophia submitted the manuscript to the W. Brothers after they ran an ad in a magazine looking for science fiction work for a comic book. She never heard back from them. They took the manuscript and ran literally. She had been sending the manuscript around to different places for years before and after sending it to them.

Let me tell you something. Writing a book is not easy. Making a movie is not easy. There are many directors who take books and make them into movies. Every part of the process is valuable and no ones work should ever be stolen from them.

Here is a link to some information about Sophia. You can get a slightly better view by reading the interview with her at the bottom of the page.

Quote:

how many people responded to the ad that they placed? do you think that they (themselves) read each and every single submission? can she prove that she sent a copy of her work to them? i can say that i mailed a script to someone too, its not hard. there is no proof. from what is available of her "proof" i cant believe her.

Well I can say this. The "proof" you ask about is this - FBI agents read her book, looked at her copyright and the judge found in her favor. Do you think that one woman going against a giant like Warner would have won her case if she couldn't prove it? Sophia launched her lawsuit in 1999. It was just settled in her favor. What additional proof do you need?

kelasings wrote:

Well I can say this. The "proof" you ask about is this - FBI agents read her book, looked at her copyright and the judge found in her favor. Do you think that one woman going against a giant like Warner would have won her case if she couldn't prove it? Sophia launched her lawsuit in 1999. It was just settled in her favor. What additional proof do you need?

yeah, i know about the whole FBI thing...they also found out that some of the movie was edited out! OMG!11! like that hasnt happened in just about every single movie that has ever been made...but in this case, it means that they must have stolen the story. her websites also claim that people working on the set of the movie saw her work being used...ask yourself this...how would those employees know what was her work if she never published it?

and youre wrong, nothing has been settled, again...the trial hasnt started yet.

the additional proof that i (and a lot of others) would like to see is...her story/book/manuscript/script/comic book/novel/drawings/whatever she is calling it now

osirica wrote:

Well you have not seen enough of the script to make an informed opinion, that's all. She describes in her interviews and you can also see the information she allows to be presented on other websites regarding it. Again, you mentioning that a story and a movie are totally different is inconsequential, because it's not relevant.

youre right, i have only been able to see two pages of it, have you seen it in its full form?

from what is available of her story, there is nothing similar...besides black clothes and "one"

kelasings wrote:

Well I can say this. The "proof" you ask about is this - FBI agents read her book, looked at her copyright and the judge found in her favor. Do you think that one woman going against a giant like Warner would have won her case if she couldn't prove it?

Your posts are a joke.
You are listening to propaganda disseminated by people with a vendetta against certain elements in the entertainment industry.
Don't get me wrong, I hate Hollywood; but there is nothing wrong with being influenced by reading someone's work, if that even happened in the first place.
And not everyone in the FBI is an "agent"! There are lawyers, analysts, and other bureaucratic types in the FBI who would do the kind of thing you suggest, rather than agents. Add to this the fact that the FBI are a bunch of bungling fools (witness their behavior in the misnamed "war on terror"), and you have nothing in favor of Stewart's case but a bunch of Internet trash posted by losers who want to make a quick buck off of someone else's work.

kelasings wrote:

Sophia launched her lawsuit in 1999. It was just settled in her favor. What additional proof do you need?

This is complete BS! I see no evidence on the web or elsewhere to indicate that such a lawsuit was ever settled in favor of Stewart.

Here is your link

lordofmud wrote:

Here is your link femmixx.com... It lists the presiding judge so you can do all the digging you want. He is my favorite bit of the article.

All this page says is that the allegations were "received and acknowledged" by the court. It provides no reference for Stewart's supposed collection of damages. It is also extremely biased and partial in its portrayal of the events in question and thus not to be trusted. I wouldn't be surprised if Warner Brothers and the rest of them sued her for distributing these claims.
You have been suckered like the rest of the poor saps who listen to the nonsense promulgated by this idiot and her loyalists.
For a more balanced discussion of the case, see this page:

[quote="Laodecea"]

Then again, maybe John the Baptist could sue Sofia for ripping off his Revelation.

1st off...This is something I have to address....

John the Baptist was not a participant in the writing of the BIBLE, the gospels, or any other work for that matter. John the Baptist was beheaded more than 50 years before the 1st gospel was written. The gospel of John, the last included book of the new testament, was written over a century after JTBs beheading.

2nd...If you READ, not scan, the ENTIRE essay, "The Third Eye," by Sofia Stewart, you would not only see similarities, but totally original concepts AND phrases that were blatantly used in both the Matrix and the Terminator.

Millions of movies and books are based the "messiah" story. Which does NOT originate from the BIBLE. It pre-dates the bible by 3,000 years. Tablets of Mesopotamian text have the story of Jesus written several different ways, none of them directly relating to a man. Most are scientific in nature, and speak of the dynamics of the world around us: The Sun/Son. The 12 rays of the Sun. The 12 disciples of the Son, and so on. Where is your research?

Mezovee wrote:

2nd...If you READ, not scan, the ENTIRE essay, "The Third Eye," by Sofia Stewart, you would not only see similarities, but totally original concepts AND phrases that were blatantly used in both the Matrix and the Terminator.

show us the entire "essay" so we can see for ourselves, and not have to blindly take someones word for it.

---
also, you can read a great number of books that im sure the creators of the matrix and terminator series read (or atleast had access to) before they made their movies that have similar ("original") ideas...nothing is new in any form of art, its all someone elses interpretation on something that has already been done before. (when i saw the matrix first i was reminded of ghost in the shell)

Sophia's concepts are/were nothing new by any means. even way back in 1981

lordofmud wrote:

Here is your link femmixx.com... It lists the presiding judge so you can do all the digging you want. He is my favorite bit of the article.

goodness people! all that website gives is the same exact (word for word pretty much) information that all the other pro-sophia sites give.

also, that site cant be very credible since the large/bold headline reads, "Black Author wins The Matrix Copyright Infringement Case"...um, no...one more time...the trial starts in JULY 2005, she has not won anything as of yet.

lordofmud wrote:

Now we know why the next two didn't measure up.

ah! another person who didnt understand the sequels so they conclude that the story was stolen.

She submitted the story in 1981

"coiencidentally"

They made a movie that is extremely similar to her story.


And you are in here saying "How do we know that they received her submission, they get hundreds every day."

How do we know? Because we see her submission on the big screen. It's called "The Matrix".

Do you know what the word "matrix" means? It means "the womb of a woman". Her story is based on a world inside the womb of a woman if I recall.

It is so funny how intelligent caucasian people, when faced with admitting another caucasian is wrong, they start to be the dumbest people in the world.

If this is a strong enough position for you, how on earth can you or anyother similarily thinking white person believe that OJ simpson is guilty?

Based on your logic, Simpson is innocent.

If the script don't fit, you must acquit.

osirica wrote:

It is so funny how intelligent caucasian people, when faced with admitting another caucasian is wrong, they start to be the dumbest people in the world. If this is a strong enough position for you, how on earth can you or anyother similarily thinking white person believe that OJ simpson is guilty?

Why are you so sure we are white? That might not be allone's real face, or he might be wearing white makeup!
You are in the Sophia Stewart cult, osirica, get out before they make you drink the funny kool-aid!

So after reading all this, basically everyone is still speculating?

How about posting something when we have actual proof, or an update on the trial.

Quote:

Do you know what the word "matrix" means? It means "the womb of a woman".

Wrong. It means "womb". Not necessarily of a woman. That is a uterus.

Quote:

And you are in here saying "How do we know that they received her submission, they get hundreds every day." How do we know? Because we see her submission on the big screen. It's called "The Matrix".

Thats not an answer and you know it. Dont be a smartass.

Quote:

It is so funny how intelligent caucasian people, when faced with admitting another caucasian is wrong, they start to be the dumbest people in the world.

Know what else if really funny ? Black people being more racist than the whites they accuse of racism ! lol

Perhaps you Sophia supporters should check the other topic where i posted the similarities of Gibson's books to the Matrix. Then compare that to Sophia's. You'll laugh.

In regards to Sophia, I'm still not sure whether I believe her or not, however, for those who are stating it doesn't matter whether her 'concept' was stolen because she didn't direct the movie, cast the actors, write the storyboards, design the look of the movie' etc., I ask what do you then say to all the other writers whose books get adapted into movies?

Look at the movie 'Troy', now we all know what kind of massive changes were made there, and yet at the end of the movie it still says 'inspired by The Iliad.' Now if Wolfgang Petersen had come out and said 'oh this whole movie was my idea', people certainly wouldn't be saying it's his just because he invested his time and effort into the movie.

Look at Ursula K. Leguin, SCIFI Channel butchered her Eartsea and she was upset about how the miniseries turned out, but they still acknowledged the concept was from her and she was compensated.

Look at Bram Strokers Dracula the book and only the Coppola movie. In the movie a lot is changed from the book but the concept is the same and the character outlines are the same, and so they chose to put the author's name in the title.

Now granted neither Stroker or 'Homer' would be coming around to sue the studio/directors, but my point is even if it's only the idea stolen, the author/originator should be given credit. For those who say if she just wants credit why does she want money...come on. Everyone involved in the movie from the director, actors, produces, stunt doubles, assistant whatevers, gets paid, and so should Sophia if she didn't create even only the idea. These movies have made millions, billions in revenue. It's not like she's asking for everything, she wants compensation. And if it the idea was stolen, she should get it.

Like I said I'm not on her side yet, but I think it's wrong and hypocritical for people to be attacking her because she wasn't involved in the movies because you should be attacking a lot of other people as well.

For those who say if what Sophia claims is true then why did she also claim she doesn't understand Matrix 2 and 3: it's because the concept that was stolen was the story of Matrix 1. Remember when the original Matrix came out no one knew it would be that big but when it was sequels were needed. At the end of the first Matrix remeber what we thought the concept of 'The One' was and how it was only in the sequel we learned there had been many 'Ones' and all the rest that followed (which may be the reason many people felt like some of the stuff in Matrix 2 and 3 seemed different from where we thought we were headed--according to Sophia. This where The Terminator comes in.

If you read and listen to Sophia, she's saying that in her story that takes place in both the past and future deals wtih a machine sent back to the past to kill a pregnant mother's (the Sarah Connor character) unborn child--a child who grows up to be the 'Neo' character, the The 'One.' Remember how the first Matrix ends with Neo telling the machines he's going to destroy them (which is what most people thought was going to happen after the first movie) well, according to Sophia he does--a la the John Connor character. That's why when Matrix 1 was so big they had to pause and take time to think out the sequels because what was suppose to happen was essentially in Terminator already. Sophia has character outlines of a 'Neo', 'Trinity' and 'Morpheus' characters who would be the main warriors fighting with 'John Connor' in the future to defeat the machines, she has a 'Zion' above the earth instead of under it, machines using people, she has 'Sentinels', etc.

Basically Terminator takes the past part of her story and The Matrix 1 the future. Remember she filed her suit originally in 1999 after only seeing the FIRST Matrix, not the sequels she didn't understand because they were not a part of her story. Sophia is NOT saying that ALL of The Matrix movies or The Terminator movies are hers, but that they took her storyline to create BOTH franchises. She is not claimining she should get money for all the movies but merely get money for her contribution to creating the movies (if she did), something any writer would and should do.

For those who say how could Sophia have honestly not seen The Terminator in all these years before the Matrix: my mother is in her early 50s and has NEVER seen any of The Terminator movies. I have a friend (21) who has never seen Spiderman or Lord of the Rings, another friend who has never seen The Godfather, so it's possible. My mother, however did see the First Matrix, and honestly says if someone asked her now about the movie, she couldn't tell them anything.

Finally, for those who are wondering why Sophia's entire book isn't to be found. Sophia says Warner and the court had the book on lockdown until the hearing in this July was done. She intends to have the book reprinted for people to judge for themselves. There is a website, I believe you can order them pre-sale. What I'm wondering is why did Warner want the book in lockdown, yet I'm also wondering why Sophia doesn't just post the thing online for us to see (then again I probably wouldn't either from a purely business perspective, especially if she loses the case).

Now, I don't really care about the race or gender issue (though I will admit science fiction and fantasy is dominated by white males but a lot of other fields in life are dominated by different types of people so), and if a white man had come forward with the same story I'd still be writing the exact same thing. What I do care about is what is fair, legal, and right.

Her work was copyrighted, and if her story/concept is the same or simply similar she deserves compensation even if the idea was her only contribution to the Terminator and Matrix movies. That's how it works for everyone else and it should be no different for her, and people should not slam her for this. Of course, this depends on if what she claims is true, and I won't know for certain until I actually read her book.

I would like to think Sophia wouldn't have been fighting all these years if there wasn't some basis to her claim, especially considering Warner has tons of lawyers fighting her and yet the court is still hearing her, and the FBI thought enough to investigate. Honestly, try to show some objectivity and rationality (and I'm not directing this at everyone because there are people who are doing exactly that and), and stop attacking other people who disagree.

Don't just say 'The Matrix is the Wachowski Brothers-they worked so hard, why is the greedy, stupid women trying to blah blah and who cares even if the idea was stolen blah blah', but also don't just say 'Oh the stupid whitey people can't believe a black woman blah blah' because neither of these kind of arguments do any good or sway anyone to see your point. Those who support Sophia because she is black I ask you 'what if she wasn't black' and for those who don't support Sophia, or think her claim doesn't matter either way, I ask you if another well known writer came forward and said something similar about a book they wrote long before they were famous, what would you say then, or does the fact Sophia is an unknown, black woman writer in a market dominated or at least stereotyped by white men have anything to do with your position. J.K. Rowling in an interview once said the reason she used her initials was because the publisher thought boys might be turned off reading Harry Potter (remember this is before the series was published, before the fame and popularity) if they knew she was a woman writer because boys are attracted to male writers primarily. Even she acknowledges there is stilll bias in readers and their perceptions of authors and stories. My friends and I once had a discussion where we asked if we thought Harry Potter would still be as huge as it is if a girl was the main character instead of Harry. Girls will read books with a girl or a boy character but boys typically read about boys. What if 'The One' in Matrix was Trinity instead of Neo. I'm not getting off topic I only mean to show trends and perceptions, how the system is set-up.

Doesn't it matter, regardless of race what Sophia is claiming, if it is true? Take race and gender, or hasty/blind devotion out of the issue on both sides and simply think and look at precedents concerning authors, the movie industry, credit and copyright, and honestly ask yourself if your opinions don't at all slightly shift. As for me I'll wait and reserve final judgment either way until I read and learn more.

"Sophia says...if you read Sophia..Sophia's book is about..."

Why don't you just admit you are working for her, dude?

holy_of_holies wrote:

"Sophia says...if you read Sophia..Sophia's book is about..." Why don't you just admit you are working for her, dude?

Thank-you for once again being an example of a person who cannot actually RESPOND with a well thought counter argument or an additional opinion except for an insult. I do not work for Sophia, do not know Sophia, and if you READ what I said, you would see I am reserving judgment and have not taken a side either way.

All I have said is what Sophia has said online and on television. Yes, she may be lying and yes, I do not think I have all the facts, but as I said, this statement was based upon what I have read and heard only. And I am not a 'dude', I am a twenty year old female college student giving her own opinion. You do not have to agree with me but please state why instead of responding with ridiculous and immature accusation.