Write a controversial opinion

[Kelliezgirl]

Emphasis mine, and it strikes me as an obvious instance of the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" phenomenon. There's been so works after Matrix that play with the notion of reality that the 'original' appears quaint and maybe even lacking in comparison. It's essentially the opposite of rose-tinted glasses.

If you come to a movie like that "late" it's hard to fairly judge it. First time I watched 48 Hours (the Nick Nolte Eddie Murphy movie) it felt very cliched to me. Found out later that it felt cliched because everyone else copied it, and I'd seen those movies first.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

I liked the first Matrix, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. The basic premise of using human's as a power source is ridiculous.

It's not Sci Fi ridiculous, though. Humans do, in fact, emit very weak electromagnetic fields. If you can harness that electricity or convert that magnetism into power (or, heck, with all those wires, just use the electricity generated in the brain), you could, maybe not real world wise, but Sci Fi wise, totally get a bit of electricity from a human.

In fact, I've used that principle to turn on a lightbulb in a science fair project before. The human completed a weakened electrical circuit that, on its own, would not make the light shine but when combined with the human conductor would light the lightbulb (thus demonstrating that the human added something to the circuit).

You'd need a metric crapton of humans, sure, but they kinda *had* a metric crapton.

 

[TheLobster]

The basic premise of using human's as a power source is ridiculous.

In Take the Red Pill, it was said that the Wachowskis' original idea was that machines needed the unique computational properties of the human brain to control the delicate process of nuclear fusion. Not exactly believable either, but at least doesn't violate the third law of thermodynamics.

It was presumably replaced to make it more understandable for Hollywood audience, which is yet another reason why the movies don't actually work all that well as movies.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

In Take the Red Pill, it was said that the Wachowskis' original idea was that machines needed the unique computational properties of the human brain to control the delicate process of nuclear fusion. Not exactly believable either, but at least doesn't violate the third law of thermodynamics.

It was presumably replaced to make it more understandable for Hollywood audience, which is yet another reason why the movies don't actually work all that well as movies.

Ooo - I didn't realize they had a different canon reason. I don't know enough about nuclear fusion to wade into this one.

 

[crookedletter]

Oh man, the fun we could have talking about what makes a movie a good one. Even if I grant you that they don't hold up to scrutiny (I don't agree, but I can grant the argument) - shear spectacle is just good fun!

Now, do they get to be "great" movies? Not sure I'd go that far. But good ones? Did you leave having had fun after? I feel like that makes for a good movie.

I don't disagree. I like a good spectacle. Like I said, cool action sequences.

A big part of it for me is what a movie/book/whatever seems to be trying to do. The Matrix movies, I felt, wanted to convince me that they were cerebral and profound and peering into questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Which is awesome, I love that. But when what they find under the hood is: "Guns. Lots of guns*," I can't help but roll my eyes a little when it gets preachy.

I won't die on the hill of being anti-Matrix. I enjoy the movies, to be honest (at least the first one). I just think they tried to straddle the line between pure fun spectacle and something a little more intellectually interesting, and in the process can be a little obnoxious.

* Also, that scene: you've taken the red pill, you're through the looking glass. You can bend reality to your will. Maybe try hacking up a fucking ID card before you slow-motion murder a bunch of innocent people whose only crime is being similarly enslaved to the machine?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's not Sci Fi ridiculous, though. Humans do, in fact, emit very weak electromagnetic fields. If you can harness that electricity or convert that magnetism into power (or, heck, with all those wires, just use the electricity generated in the brain), you could, maybe not real world wise, but Sci Fi wise, totally get a bit of electricity from a human.

In fact, I've used that principle to turn on a lightbulb in a science fair project before. The human completed a weakened electrical circuit that, on its own, would not make the light shine but when combined with the human conductor would light the lightbulb (thus demonstrating that the human added something to the circuit).

You'd need a metric crapton of humans, sure, but they kinda *had* a metric crapton.

But the energy needed to feed that metric crap ton of humans VASTLY outweighs the energy generated by those humans.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

But the energy needed to feed that metric crap ton of humans VASTLY outweighs the energy generated by those humans.

Maybe that's where all that nuclear fusion @TheLobster mentioned comes in.

* Also, that scene: you've taken the red pill, you're through the looking glass. You can bend reality to your will. Maybe try hacking up a fucking ID card before you slow-motion murder a bunch of innocent people whose only crime is being similarly enslaved to the machine?

This right here is actually one of my biggest problems with the movie. When they are killing them *after* they've become agents, okay, fine, that body was taken over. But I'm sure all those very smart people could have figured out how to NOT murder a whole building full of innocents - unless you're arguing they are somehow ALL agents.

I won't die on the hill of being anti-Matrix. I enjoy the movies, to be honest (at least the first one). I just think they tried to straddle the line between pure fun spectacle and something a little more intellectually interesting, and in the process can be a little obnoxious.

Aww man, how can we be controversial with each other if we won't die on our hills? In all seriousness, yea - it's annoying when movies don't fully commit to the bit on either side of the spectrum. I think that's part of what really bothers people about the sequels if they loved the original.

Then again, people also just love to hate on Keanu Reaves for some reason that I just don't understand, so there's that as well.

 

[crookedletter]

Then again, people also just love to hate on Keanu Reaves for some reason that I just don't understand, so there's that as well.

For what it's worth, I am firmly in the pro-Keanu camp. Brilliant actor? Probably not. But he's carved out a very fun niche for himself, and incidentally seems like he might actually be a decent person.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Pics or it didn’t happen.

 

[iwatchus]

Pics or it didn’t happen.

Im not sure what this is referring to, but all I can think of is @StillStunned complaining a few minutes ago in another thread that Laurel won't let him DM her dick pics.

 

[StillStunned]

Im not sure what this is referring to, but all I can think of is @StillStunned complaining a few minutes ago in another thread that Laurel won't let him DM her dick pics.

Out of context, this makes me look really bad.

 

[crookedletter]

Out of context, this makes me look really bad.

Whereas properly contextualized unsolicited dick pics are well above board.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Maybe that's where all that nuclear fusion @TheLobster mentioned comes in.

But the MOVIE doesn't mention the nuclear fusion. And if you have the nuclear fusion to create power to grow the food to feed the humans to create power to run the matrix... just cut out the damn middleman and run everything off fusion and be done with it.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

But the MOVIE doesn't mention the nuclear fusion. And if you have the nuclear fusion to create power to grow the food to feed the humans to create power to run the matrix... just cut out the damn middleman and run everything off fusion and be done with it.

Very true, the movie doesn't mention it, it just says it needs the humans to power the machines and feeds the dead to the living. The rest can happen through the magic of Sci Fi - like the amazing chicken dinners they have in The Fifth Element. When am I getting my GOOD CHICKEN!

And yet, I still think they are good movies. Hence, the controversy. I'm glad I was right that I was controversial though ;-)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Very true, the movie doesn't mention it, it just says it needs the humans to power the machines and feeds the dead to the living. The rest can happen through the magic of Sci Fi - like the amazing chicken dinners they have in The Fifth Element. When am I getting my GOOD CHICKEN!

And yet, I still think they are good movies. Hence, the controversy. I'm glad I was right that I was controversial though ;-)

I agree that it's a fine movie, but you can enjoy it and also recognize that the premise isn't logical and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. These are separate things.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

I'm pulling this from another thread because it's controversial enough to put here where I think it belongs):

I don't care if there is unearned favoritism going on behind the scenes at Lit. I also don't care if there's an earned whitelisting going on, so long as favorites/white listed folks are following the same rules in terms of content that everyone else is (because, let's be honest, those rules are protecting the site, the readers, and the writers equally).

Some justification: I'm getting to have fun both as a reader and a writer on a site that is free and that I've never paid money to, but that still gives me two different ways of having fun. If the people who provide that free site to me want to play favorites or want to add in a whitelisting feature that makes their lives better - then I say go for it.

Is getting my story in front of people part of my fun? Absolutely. But I'm also willing to learn to be patient if that's what's needed. Again, I've not paid for a single thing here. I guess I'd be upset if there were paid tiers of writers, I paid to be on a paid priority tier, and then didn't get the promised perks. But I'm on the free tier, baby. and that means I'm going to go practice my marshmallow test some more and figure out what else to write while I wait.

The *only* time I think there's a leg to stand on is when there's money on the line for a contest but, again, I didn't contribute any of that money. I'm not entitled to it (I won't win it anyway, but that's also besides the point). But I'd say that's the other time for being upset, if there is one at all: if contests become a rigged system simply because of that favoritism/whitelisting. So there, I'll hedge a small part, and only a small part, of my controversial opinion.

 

[Off_base]

I'm pulling this from another thread because it's controversial enough to put here where I think it belongs):

I don't care if there is unearned favoritism going on behind the scenes at Lit. I also don't care if there's an earned whitelisting going on, so long as favorites/white listed folks are following the same rules in terms of content that everyone else is (because, let's be honest, those rules are protecting the site, the readers, and the writers equally).

Some justification: I'm getting to have fun both as a reader and a writer on a site that is free and that I've never paid money to, but that still gives me two different ways of having fun. If the people who provide that free site to me want to play favorites or want to add in a whitelisting feature that makes their lives better - then I say go for it.

Is getting my story in front of people part of my fun? Absolutely. But I'm also willing to learn to be patient if that's what's needed. Again, I've not paid for a single thing here. I guess I'd be upset if there were paid tiers of writers, I paid to be on a paid priority tier, and then didn't get the promised perks. But I'm on the free tier, baby. and that means I'm going to go practice my marshmallow test some more and figure out what else to write while I wait.

The *only* time I think there's a leg to stand on is when there's money on the line for a contest but, again, I didn't contribute any of that money. I'm not entitled to it (I won't win it anyway, but that's also besides the point). But I'd say that's the other time for being upset, if there is one at all: if contests become a rigged system simply because of that favoritism/whitelisting. So there, I'll hedge a small part, and only a small part, of my controversial opinion.

I didn't find anything controversial here, which probably means we're both controversial.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'm pulling this from another thread because it's controversial enough to put here where I think it belongs):

I don't care if there is unearned favoritism going on behind the scenes at Lit. I also don't care if there's an earned whitelisting going on, so long as favorites/white listed folks are following the same rules in terms of content that everyone else is (because, let's be honest, those rules are protecting the site, the readers, and the writers equally).

Some justification: I'm getting to have fun both as a reader and a writer on a site that is free and that I've never paid money to, but that still gives me two different ways of having fun. If the people who provide that free site to me want to play favorites or want to add in a whitelisting feature that makes their lives better - then I say go for it.

Is getting my story in front of people part of my fun? Absolutely. But I'm also willing to learn to be patient if that's what's needed. Again, I've not paid for a single thing here. I guess I'd be upset if there were paid tiers of writers, I paid to be on a paid priority tier, and then didn't get the promised perks. But I'm on the free tier, baby. and that means I'm going to go practice my marshmallow test some more and figure out what else to write while I wait.

The *only* time I think there's a leg to stand on is when there's money on the line for a contest but, again, I didn't contribute any of that money. I'm not entitled to it (I won't win it anyway, but that's also besides the point). But I'd say that's the other time for being upset, if there is one at all: if contests become a rigged system simply because of that favoritism/whitelisting. So there, I'll hedge a small part, and only a small part, of my controversial opinion.

I'm not sure if there is any actual evidence of favoritism so much as there are people here who try to create the impression that they have some sort of special inside access. So, when the system gives them a break, they feel the need to call attention to it.
My last submission was approved within hours of being submitted. I didn't mention it publicly here on the AH because it isn't relevant. Then again, I'm not trying to create the impression that I've got some kind of special access either.
Nobody here knows what goes on behind the curtain.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Im not sure what this is referring to, but all I can think of is @StillStunned complaining a few minutes ago in another thread that Laurel won't let him DM her dick pics.

Sorry, it didn’t carry the quote. I was referring to Simon’s gym dick post.

 

[SavannaT]

If you’re married, even happily, and have a c cup or better you should cheat at least once to feel a new set of hands on your tits.

 

[iwatchus]

Sorry, it didn’t carry the quote. I was referring to Simon’s gym dick post.

It's fine. I appreciated the chance to pick on StullStunned about his dick pic comment.

 

[StillStunned]

It's fine. I appreciated the chance to pick on StullStunned about his dick pic comment.

Please, keep drawing more attention to it, why don't you? I haven't had a single story approved since I made it!

 

[MillieDynamite]

Don't worry, he will.

Please, keep drawing more attention to it, why don't you? I haven't had a single story approved since I made it!

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Please, keep drawing more attention to it, why don't you? I haven't had a single story approved since I made it!

Well, post it here, and we can all tell you what's wrong with it.

 

[Baztrachian]

Write a controversial opinion:​

I support the right of public school teachers to baptize children into Christianity without parental permission.