»Inside Tip - Warner Brothers Respond«

Gibson has acknowledged that they ripped him off, and not pursued it.

This woman's grounds and mental state are shaky, at best. She's aligned herself with the most unreliable sources around, and sounds more like a conspiracy theorist than anything else.

She's either being fed a lot of crap by wacked-out people all around her, or is wacked out herself.

Regardless, she's not likely to win anything, and it won't be because of any conspiracy by the media.

I dont doubt the womans mental state. Ive heard her interview, and shes sound as a pound. Her grievence is that a substantial amount of her work was ripped off. Gibson is th eking of cyberpunk, and much of the feel of his work, and of course a few phrases were totally ripped. But Sophia maintains that elements of plot were taken from her work, and witnesses at warner brothers, who now work in toher film studios, maintain the same, that the wachowskis had her work, on hand, at script meetings, AND EVEN ON THE SET. The FBI also agrees that this took place, and those witnesses will testify.

Shes not crazy. Shes not stupid. If either of those were the case, it wouldnt have come this far.

i fear that this line of dialogue is doomed to end quickly.

"klisejo" is simply too well informed and too logical for the typical "fanboy" assault. at this point, after all of the evidence that has been revealed and corroborated do we, the people, really need the courts to tell us the difference between right and wrong. if a director is accessing someone's treatment on the set during production...
the theft was so blatant that the discriptions of almost all of the main characters, even their style of dress, the ship, the sentinels, the basic plot for most of the first movie, and more were left unchanged.
my heart goes out to all the true fans out there that turn away from the evidence, argue against reason, and when frustrated, make allegations of idiocy and insanity at ms. stewart in an attempt to validate their own "reality".

they were so deeply violated that they fail to see their role in her molestation.
how widespread is this practice that such an obviously criminal act can be perpetrated with such impunity?

to those out there that attack this woman who is making one of the most courageous stand against the establishment in recent history, i say this:

sophia stewart is us.
she represents the best of what we are in a fight that almost all of us would be afraid to undertake.
people have "disappeared" in this country for a lot less money.

she becomes the symbol of the creative artist who invests all of what they are into a "work" with the hope that, if it is good enough, and submitted properly through "the system", that it will pay off in recognition and a livelihood.

she is the american dream. maybe flawed in delivery but immensely talented, brilliant beyond structure.

sounds too heavy? do the homework, in truth it is only accurate.

"how widespread is this practice that such an obviously criminal act can be perpetrated with such impunity? "

A wonderful question, and one I asked the great google god to answer. Heres some of what I was able to find.

actually it seems, according to the documentation, that "the matrix" as a title came from a suggestion by carrie ann moss as inspired by a '93 tv series, "matrix" that she starred in with nick mancuso.
has anyone heard of any other reference to a previous title?

The television show 'Matrix' and the film The Matrix are unrelated, except by the common casting of Carrie-Anne Moss. The titles are similar by coincidence only. That is, at least, my understanding of it.

Agent Zero wrote:

Well it seems to me that sophia is gonna get laughed out of the room when the judge realizes that her script was written after the first terminator movie. it came out before her script didnt it? i mean whats the deal with her. if it was true then this would of been settled out of court like 5 years ago.

Not true. Terminator was released in 1984, whilst "The third eye" was copyrighted in 1983. Questions: "How did James Cameron possibly get a hold of the script?". Did he steal it from her house? She wasn't even that famous, let alone famous enough for someone to know what she was working on. Given that films are often produced and released 3 months later in cinemas, this means that the story of terminator would have to have been written in the 9 months previous. When we consider you can't shoot a film without the script, the script would have had to be in place prior to shooting. Don't forget that shooting a film such as terminator would take a long time, say 9+ months. This means the script really had to be written before 1983, the year "third eye" was copyrighted.

The rico order stated that warner bros stole copyrighted material? But they didn't steal it, she sent it to the wachowskis/warner bros, because they requested it. right?

greyrevealed :

Quote:

the theft was so blatant that the discriptions of almost all of the main characters, even their style of dress, the ship, the sentinels, the basic plot for most of the first movie, and more were left unchanged.

Where did you see this? Have you read her work? Can i see it somewhere on the net? And apart from this, check out some facts i pointed out in the big thread about what CAN be copyrighted.

I was really dissaponted by your last post, when you started talking about "sophia is us,the american dream" etc,etc. That really gave you away. I think you just WANT to have someone ,as an icon, to fullfill some desire to feel good about a David vs Goliath situation.

Believe me, i dislike corporations too.But i try not to let feelings cloud my judgement. We must only look at evidence.

What we WANT to happen should be irrelevant. The important thing is what DID happen.

Quote:

I was really dissaponted by your last post, when you started talking about "sophia is us,the american dream" etc,etc. That really gave you away. I think you just WANT to have someone ,as an icon, to fullfill some desire to feel good about a David vs Goliath situation...We must only look at evidence.

... and when the evidence reveals that someone has done something of magnitude, something profound, then what? any real fighter sees Ali take on Foreman convincingly and is, not only impressed but, inspired.
i was man enough to admit it.
i am not hiding anything. you just don't know me.
your statement about what i need or "desire" was not merely ignorant, but a cowardly attempt at invalidation.
yes, i said cowardly. not having enough information to make a reasonable inference is one thing, but transposing the weaknesses in your own character onto me is sad.
the need for the icon is expressed in your support of thieves merely because you want to believe that it is they, and not someone like Ms. Stewart, that created this entity that has captured you. it is a need to validate your own existence that drives you.
man up. face your demons.
there are those that haven't seen as much evidence as i and others have, and as such debate the validity of her claim. bravo, as this comes from a genuine curiosity and the need for truth. when all is revealed to them, they will not need a court's decision to inspire outrage in this travesty.
...but in regards to the court, did you know that Ms. Stewart's continuance was granted and RICO was reinstituted in this case?
every single defense motion has been denied... even the one to surpress their early buy out attempt of her, as evidence.

i don't subscribe to this whole "dislike the corporations" thing, this conversation was about a specific circumstance.
big business, small business... just business.
when Foreman falls to the canvas, how many say...
-i could have done that
-Ali was just lucky
-i knocked sombody down in grade school one punch, i swear
-hey, i didn't see it, it didn't happen...
...and no i don't want to see the videotape

... and why did the world celebrate his victory?

if you had any idea who you were speaking to at all, you would know that i have no need for a "hero"... just a genuine appreciation for such a display of the human spirit.

klisejo wrote:

Shes not crazy. Shes not stupid. If either of those were the case, it wouldnt have come this far.

Please. You actually believe what you wrote? What about the woman who sued McDonalds on the grounds her coffee (no pun intended) was too hot? Coffee's supposed to be hot! This received far more attention, even though the sum of money rewarded was small compared to miss stewarts pay off. Tell me this woman who didn't realise the coffee was hot was neither crazy or stupid. My point being no matter how stupid or crazy a case or the person filing it is, it will often go far. In fact the more crazy or stupid it is, the more "air" it tends to get.

We knows shes won, but I will never believe the matrix and terminator were based on her ideas, until I can read the whole of "the third eye". The 2 pages i've read seem to be very loosely based on maybe 1 of the many ideas portrayed in the matrix. The one page seems almost completely based on the hero's mother who would save mankind. This is in my mind more in tune with terminator, but not a new idea, first featuring in that famous book "The Bible". Also from what i've read he is leader of some galactic empire (Which assumes other planets) whilst the matrix and terminator movies are all earth based. From what i've also read there is no indication of machines at all. More like some large communist-type system of government. As for the comic strip, this was taken from a matrix comic, produced by an artist, in which case why isn't she sueing him/her? or vice versa?

After reading the extracts of "the third eye" and casting my eye back to the matrix and original terminator film, the later seems the most similar to third eye (but still very different). If this is true, why did she file her case after seeing the matrix and deeming it too similar to her work? Why didn't she sue after watching the original terminator which is more similar to her work? Why has it taken 20+ years to file her case? Oh that's right she only filed it six years ago after the huge success of terminator 1, 2 and the matrix.

Someone show me the remainder of the script and I might at least be inclined to believe her. 2 pages is nowhere near enough.

This whole thing is also most likely to be a complete hoax as someone in another forum posted. Someone just won $200,000,000 (not 2.5 billion, that was the gross from the matrix and terminator trilogies) from a case, and it hasn't been on any news broadcasts? I mean I know I live in the UK, but something that big is hardly gonna be missed. Especially when I heard about the very small payoff to the crazy woman with hot coffee (it's meant to be hot? since when?) from mcdonalds.

greyrevealed wrote:

the need for the icon is expressed in your support of thieves merely because you want to believe that it is they, and not someone like Ms. Stewart, that created this entity that has captured you. it is a need to validate your own existence that drives you. man up. face your demons. there are those that haven't seen as much evidence as i and others have, and as such debate the validity of her claim.

Ms Stewart created this entity? Dude you can call it an unfinished script. This isn't a philosophy lesson. So you can stop trying to seem clever and get to the point.

You may be right in saying that we haven't seen as much evidence as you...so send us the link to "the third eye" already!

Quote:

i am not hiding anything. you just don't know me. your statement about what i need or "desire" was not merely ignorant, but a cowardly attempt at invalidation.

You can ofcourse percieve it as you may. My intent is not to invalidate you.Each person's "validity" is not clearly known by a post in a forum,and the part that IS shown, it is by what he writes.

Its intresting though, that you say i dont know you, but then again, you dont know me So how come YOU do the same thing you acuse me of ? (calling me "coward" even ! )

Quote:

yes, i said cowardly. not having enough information to make a reasonable inference is one thing,

But thats exactly what happens here ! Nobody has enough evidence ! Did i say anything different?

Quote:

but transposing the weaknesses in your own character onto me is sad

...Buddy, if you jump into such conclusions for someone ,from 1 post, i can understand how you came to have already decided that Stewart is right and the WB are wrong. Same pattern.Instead of doing that, i suggest you first LISTEN and READ.

Quote:

the need for the icon is expressed in your support of thieves merely because you want to believe that it is they, and not someone like Ms. Stewart, that created this entity that has captured you. it is a need to validate your own existence that drives you. man up. face your demons.

Dont become a psychiatrist/psychologist. You'd suck.Yes i said, suck. I'm sorry, i wouldnt be so agressive, but then again you wanted it this way.

So without knowing EVEN what is my position in this matter, you try out some more conclusions that have to do with reality as much a fish has to do with a bicycle. That , to me seems the person who can easily be manipulated and guided.

So let me inform you, that from the day the Matrix came out, i already knew where they got their ideas from, and it wasnt your precious "David" (aka Sophia Stewart). And since we're at it, how are you sure SHE didnt take it from somewhere else? She was insignificant then, so noone would pay attention to the copyright she made. And finally, as others have stated, its how the story is told (if its not something original). So , if you think about it, if it WAS her story, and they hadnt stolen it, it might even be a worse set of movies. Can you dismiss this possibility? (i'm not saying it would be a good thing if they stole it, but you get the picture i hope)

Quote:

there are those that haven't seen as much evidence as i and others have, and as such debate the validity of her claim. bravo, as this comes from a genuine curiosity and the need for truth. when all is revealed to them, they will not need a court's decision to inspire outrage in this travesty.

Great.SHOW me this evidence! Where is it! I would like to see all this.I Have no problem. But what you're basically telling me here (if i understood well)is that, even if Sophia DOESNT win, it will be because the court was bought.And that, shows a narrow mind. Because it eliminates the possibility that they didnt steal from her.Which is not slim by the way from what we've seen.

Quote:

if you had any idea who you were speaking to at all, you would know that i have no need for a "hero"... just a genuine appreciation for such a display of the human spirit.

LOL, likewise, if you knew who YOU were talking to, you would know what i said before.That practicaly i have no need to confirm the Wachowskys as creators of a film that meant something to me. Cause i already know it wasnt original 6 years ago when it came out.

Also, if you have an apreciation of the human spirit you would expect her to come out in 1984 , when the Terminator came out, and battle it out,and make a fuss. And i dont wanna hear excuses like "black people were not listened to then", or "the laws were different so they didnt listen to her", etc. cause they're just not realistic.

Face it , most ideas have been created many years ago.For the last 30 years we just see some of them being either remade in film, or made in film from some book not many have read. And all of this was before ms.Stewart. Its as simple as that. Any further persistence on believing her story without proof, is simply a desire. Again, i point out, that i will be 100% in favour of her, NOT if the court simply says so, but if WE SEE this evidence ! (there;s a difference )