That's brilliant. Certainly deflates a lot of the loftier claims about the depth of meaning in the movie. I will spread this interpretation far and wide. Thank you.
Man, special effects. Whew. They're so from the same pod.
Actually, on second thought, the Star Wars Prequels hew much closer to the Last Starfighter paradigm. Anakin IS "The Kid Playing the Video Game", and JarJar is "the robot duplicate".
The Matrix can't be derivative of The Last Starfighter because The Matrix doesn't feature a gay alien mentor character to help Neo out of his self-doubt. :)
Ender's Game and Last Starfighter are far more similar in tone and plot. But the Matrix has the potential for a whole debate about the nature of reality and perception that Last Starfighter doesn't in any way touch upon.
In LS, the protagonist plays an arcade game and his success at that game signals aliens that on Earth someone exists with the skill set they require to fight space battles. The protagonist (I could go find the novelisation or look it up on IMDB but can't be bothered) learns that the universe he thought he was part of at the start of the story has expanded massively in size by the end of it. But he can still visit his old universe (in fact, IIRC, he returns there to pick up the girl).
In the Matrix, the protagonist learns that the universe he thought he was part of doesn't exist in reality. And having learnt that, he can never return to his previous life.
I can't see how that makes the stories at all similar.
If you want to reduce the plots that much, then yes.
And there are only 7 plots in the whole world (or, in fact, 2. Man against the world and Man against himself).
There's a certain point beyond which it's pointless to reduce the plot to its elements because you lose any ability to differentiate. By your reckoning, ET, The Last Starfighter, Wargames, The Matrix, Star Wars; all of these films (and many more) have much the same plot. (And it's lifted straight from Campbell.)
I prefer to set my granularity level higher - what you're describing as "window dressings" I'm describing as plot, because they make a difference to the outcome.
The fact that Neo can become a superdooper fighting machine in no time at all, whereas Alex (The Last Starfighter) had to painstakingly learn his skills in the real world (even though he didn't realise thats what he was doing)makes a difference to the outcome of the film; in fact, that's the core of the Matrix - Neo learning that the rules of the world are mutable to his will. Alex learns the opposite - that the rules of the universe apply universally - skills he learns in one place apply elsewhere, in what might otherwise be described as another world.
And to my mind, anything which makes a difference to the outcome of the story that is part of the underlying "reality" can be described as plot.
It's a pretty fundental technique of critical analysis to strip the plot back the basics and work out what they've done with that core story to make interesting. (You'll often find that bad films can't be stripped back to that core plot premise for one reason or another, indicating that the director has lost track of the narrative thrust of his work for whatever reason).
The point really is that both the Matrix and the Last Starfighter have, at their core, a geek wish-fulfilment fantasy. You're quibbling over details differentiate the storyline of the films which is fair enough, but it doesn't change my key point.
And anyway, the cool thing about the Matrix is not the plot or the Fisher Price philosphy (to borrow a Warren Ellis phrase), it's the incredible and innovative visual style.
Hmmm.
That makes the statement "The Matrix is merely Star Wars remade for the 90s" equally valid from a certain point of view. Cool.
It's a pretty fundental technique of critical analysis to strip the plot back the basics and work out what they've done with that core story to make interesting. [snip] You're quibbling over details differentiate the storyline of the films which is fair enough, but it doesn't change my key point.
Actually, I'm quibbling over the definition of basics. As I said above, all plots can be defined into two categories - "Man against the World" and "Man against Himself". That's not a useful categorisation, but it's about as basic as plots go. Your definition of basics is further back than mine, because I don't feel that stripping back as far as you are going with this allows for meaningful dissection of the plot. Obviously, you disagree.
An example - wolves and Jack Russells are both canines. That means they have a lot in common. But it's often useful to set the basics higher to have a meaningful discussion about what makes a wolf a wolf and a terrier a terrier.
And if you're defining the two films as Geek Fantasy Wish Fulfilment, add in X-Men, Spiderman, some aspects of the Batman films, and so many other films of recent years that the definition becomes too broad.
I don't disagree that all the films mentioned are GFWF - I just don't think that is a good starting point for a discussion.
And they're just as much reworkings of the Hero's Journey as they are GFWF. Perhaps that's a point to talk about? Campbell as the starting point for the rise of Geek status in popular culture? :-)
Nah, Campbell has been throughly discredited by most serious critics as a useful formula for the dissection and deconstruction of narrative in all but a few, pseudo-mythic circumstances. :-)
Certainly, the "computer geek as saviour" model is related to the "nerd becomes hero" model as exemplified by Spider-Man. To me, the crucial and underlying element is that it is the very thing that makes them a nerd - their affinity with computers - is also what makes them a hero.
By contrast, it's an external influence that gives Spider-Man the ability to be a hero (the spider in the lab), rather than any innate quality of his own.
The two films I quote represent an interesting evolution from the 60s to the 80s and 90s that seem to me to partially derive thematic influences from the early days of the cyberpunk genre.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 04:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 06:26 pm (UTC)Man, special effects. Whew. They're so from the same pod.
Actually, on second thought, the Star Wars Prequels hew much closer to the Last Starfighter paradigm. Anakin IS "The Kid Playing the Video Game", and JarJar is "the robot duplicate".
With Yoda as "The Wise Alien Mentor".
no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-09 01:15 am (UTC)Excellent...
Date: 2003-05-08 06:15 am (UTC)Re: Excellent...
Date: 2003-05-08 08:16 am (UTC)A
no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 09:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 04:07 pm (UTC)Ender's Game and Last Starfighter are far more similar in tone and plot. But the Matrix has the potential for a whole debate about the nature of reality and perception that Last Starfighter doesn't in any way touch upon.
In LS, the protagonist plays an arcade game and his success at that game signals aliens that on Earth someone exists with the skill set they require to fight space battles. The protagonist (I could go find the novelisation or look it up on IMDB but can't be bothered) learns that the universe he thought he was part of at the start of the story has expanded massively in size by the end of it. But he can still visit his old universe (in fact, IIRC, he returns there to pick up the girl).
In the Matrix, the protagonist learns that the universe he thought he was part of doesn't exist in reality. And having learnt that, he can never return to his previous life.
I can't see how that makes the stories at all similar.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-09 01:18 am (UTC)The fact that both plots' basic premise is "a nerdy computer kid is the only one with the mad skills to save the earth" makes them very similar.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-09 02:16 am (UTC)And there are only 7 plots in the whole world (or, in fact, 2. Man against the world and Man against himself).
There's a certain point beyond which it's pointless to reduce the plot to its elements because you lose any ability to differentiate. By your reckoning, ET, The Last Starfighter, Wargames, The Matrix, Star Wars; all of these films (and many more) have much the same plot. (And it's lifted straight from Campbell.)
I prefer to set my granularity level higher - what you're describing as "window dressings" I'm describing as plot, because they make a difference to the outcome.
The fact that Neo can become a superdooper fighting machine in no time at all, whereas Alex (The Last Starfighter) had to painstakingly learn his skills in the real world (even though he didn't realise thats what he was doing)makes a difference to the outcome of the film; in fact, that's the core of the Matrix - Neo learning that the rules of the world are mutable to his will. Alex learns the opposite - that the rules of the universe apply universally - skills he learns in one place apply elsewhere, in what might otherwise be described as another world.
And to my mind, anything which makes a difference to the outcome of the story that is part of the underlying "reality" can be described as plot.
YMMV, of course.
Re:
Date: 2003-05-09 02:52 am (UTC)The point really is that both the Matrix and the Last Starfighter have, at their core, a geek wish-fulfilment fantasy. You're quibbling over details differentiate the storyline of the films which is fair enough, but it doesn't change my key point.
And anyway, the cool thing about the Matrix is not the plot or the Fisher Price philosphy (to borrow a Warren Ellis phrase), it's the incredible and innovative visual style.
Hmmm.
That makes the statement "The Matrix is merely Star Wars remade for the 90s" equally valid from a certain point of view. Cool.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-09 04:16 am (UTC)[snip]
You're quibbling over details differentiate the storyline of the films which is fair enough, but it doesn't change my key point.
Actually, I'm quibbling over the definition of basics. As I said above, all plots can be defined into two categories - "Man against the World" and "Man against Himself". That's not a useful categorisation, but it's about as basic as plots go. Your definition of basics is further back than mine, because I don't feel that stripping back as far as you are going with this allows for meaningful dissection of the plot. Obviously, you disagree.
An example - wolves and Jack Russells are both canines. That means they have a lot in common. But it's often useful to set the basics higher to have a meaningful discussion about what makes a wolf a wolf and a terrier a terrier.
And if you're defining the two films as Geek Fantasy Wish Fulfilment, add in X-Men, Spiderman, some aspects of the Batman films, and so many other films of recent years that the definition becomes too broad.
I don't disagree that all the films mentioned are GFWF - I just don't think that is a good starting point for a discussion.
And they're just as much reworkings of the Hero's Journey as they are GFWF. Perhaps that's a point to talk about? Campbell as the starting point for the rise of Geek status in popular culture? :-)
Re:
Date: 2003-05-09 04:51 am (UTC)Certainly, the "computer geek as saviour" model is related to the "nerd becomes hero" model as exemplified by Spider-Man. To me, the crucial and underlying element is that it is the very thing that makes them a nerd - their affinity with computers - is also what makes them a hero.
By contrast, it's an external influence that gives Spider-Man the ability to be a hero (the spider in the lab), rather than any innate quality of his own.
The two films I quote represent an interesting evolution from the 60s to the 80s and 90s that seem to me to partially derive thematic influences from the early days of the cyberpunk genre.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 06:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-08 06:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-09 02:53 am (UTC)