Cloud Atlas

[williamsj]

One thing that does concern me, regarding the Wachowski siblings ... their movies have been consistently amazing (The Matrix, V For Vendetta) ... however the recent court case involving the, apparently real, author of The Matrix, whom the Wachowskis appear to have ripped off ... could it be that there is more to their activities than meets the eye (in a negative sense, I mean)? Or was that case an effort to discredit them and their work? Does anyone know more about this?

I think this depends on who you believe, but this link says not necessarily:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

 

[Jacques]

One thing that does concern me, regarding the Wachowski siblings ... their movies have been consistently amazing (The Matrix, V For Vendetta) ... however the recent court case involving the, apparently real, author of The Matrix, whom the Wachowskis appear to have ripped off ... could it be that there is more to their activities than meets the eye (in a negative sense, I mean)? Or was that case an effort to discredit them and their work? Does anyone know more about this?

I think this depends on who you believe, but this link says not necessarily:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

Thanks for the link John.

 

[psychegram]

One thing that does concern me, regarding the Wachowski siblings ... their movies have been consistently amazing (The Matrix, V For Vendetta) ... however the recent court case involving the, apparently real, author of The Matrix, whom the Wachowskis appear to have ripped off ... could it be that there is more to their activities than meets the eye (in a negative sense, I mean)? Or was that case an effort to discredit them and their work? Does anyone know more about this?

I think this depends on who you believe, but this link says not necessarily:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

Thanks for that. I should have thought to check Snopes myself ... good to know that the Wachowskis aren't scumbags.

 

[Mike]

One thing that does concern me, regarding the Wachowski siblings ... their movies have been consistently amazing (The Matrix, V For Vendetta) ... however the recent court case involving the, apparently real, author of The Matrix, whom the Wachowskis appear to have ripped off ... could it be that there is more to their activities than meets the eye (in a negative sense, I mean)? Or was that case an effort to discredit them and their work? Does anyone know more about this?

I think this depends on who you believe, but this link says not necessarily:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

The snopes take seems to be correct for Sophia Stewart person, but I see it pop up on FB on occasion where the rumor is spread again. There does seem to be another lawsuit by a guy named Thomas Althouse:
_http://www.inquisitr.com/555977/wachowskis-sued-matrix-creators-accused-of-stealing-ideas/
_http://news.moviefone.com/2013/03/04/matrix-directors-sued-wachowskis_n_2806846.html

 

[williamsj]

One thing that does concern me, regarding the Wachowski siblings ... their movies have been consistently amazing (The Matrix, V For Vendetta) ... however the recent court case involving the, apparently real, author of The Matrix, whom the Wachowskis appear to have ripped off ... could it be that there is more to their activities than meets the eye (in a negative sense, I mean)? Or was that case an effort to discredit them and their work? Does anyone know more about this?

I think this depends on who you believe, but this link says not necessarily:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

The snopes take seems to be correct for Sophia Stewart person, but I see it pop up on FB on occasion where the rumor is spread again. There does seem to be another lawsuit by a guy named Thomas Althouse:
_http://www.inquisitr.com/555977/wachowskis-sued-matrix-creators-accused-of-stealing-ideas/
_http://news.moviefone.com/2013/03/04/matrix-directors-sued-wachowskis_n_2806846.html

What is interesting in this, is that the film eXistenZ in 1999 also used plugs in the back as access methods.

_http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120907/

I think that the idea of copyright is now taken way too much to the extreme. Sorry to say mainly in the US!

I personally think that the idea of copyrighting "look and feel" is ridiculous; as has now been said several times in the UK courts. In that you can copyright a method to achieve an objective, but you cannot copyright the objective!

If I want to design a good looking website, I look around at what is out there, and draw ideas from what I see; is this stealing? If so then a large percentage of inventors over a long time are guilty of copyright infringement.

 

[Cosmos]

Can somebody, who read Sophia Stewart's "The Third Eye- Where it all Begins" wich is apparently the basis of the movie trilogy "The Matrix" can tell us their assessment, if they think it is the basis of it or if there are many elements in the book wich proof that it is in fact so?

Here is an interview with Sophia Stewart:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC-p2OO6P8k&list=PLC24C917C284412B0

She believes in god and she also claims that "Terminator" was at least in parts based on her book

An this is one of the basis Stewart is claiming this:

"I'll be back" is a direct quote out of my book...

Well I find that kind of strange especially because the book in question seems to be in part of a saviour that will return back to the earth (Jesus I guess)...

On Amazon we can read:

_http://www.amazon.com/The-Third-Eye-ebook/dp/B0070PWPU6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369587268&sr=8-1&keywords=sophia+stewart

Publication Date: January 11, 2006
"THE THIRD EYE". Sophia Stewart's epic story that was stolen and used to create two of Hollywoods biggest franchises, THE MATRIX and THE TERMINATOR. Read the THIRD EYE along with additional information such as Court documents, letters of access, registered return receipts, FBI investigations and Stewart's future projects. Be apart of history and purchase THE THIRD EYE. "This is not the end...it is only the beginning."

And further in the comment section we can read another of her so called proofs:

This book consists of two parts: the "story" (actually more of a rough outline of an undeveloped story) and a listing of "evidence" that the creators of the Terminator and Matrix series plagiarized the book in creating their works. My view on the story portion first, as the "evidence" portion is by far the majority of the book and takes longer to review:

The basic premise is that the majority of humanity has been enslaved by an alien. A prophecy states that a savior, the chosen one, will come with divine powers to free humanity. The book is *very* short, and is obviously unfinished, a fact the author does not deny (although calling an obviously incomplete rough draft her "masterpiece" seems a bit misleading to me). The story, such as it is, is fairly interesting, and there some fairly good metaphors and philosophical leanings in it. All in all, as it stands now it's not very good. If the author finished it, it might be a fantastic story. Or it might suck. "The devil is in the details," as they say, and the true test of an author is not whether they can come up with an interesting backbone to their story; it's whether they can flesh it out with interesting, compelling characters and events that draw you in that determines whether a story is good or not. However, considering that this story has been in an unfinished state for 26 years, it seems unlikely Ms. Stewart will ever finish it.

The majority of the book consists of the author trying to prove plagiarism on the part of the creators of "The Terminator" and "The Matrix." There are copies of receipts, correspondence, and various legal documents detailing her copyright dates, court cases, etc. While I don't doubt that Ms. Stewart is telling the truth about when she wrote her story, what she fails to do is show conclusive, direct connections between her ideas and those of the two movie series.

Most of the similarities I see between "The Third Eye" and the Terminator/Matrix series are superficial, and not indicative of plagiarism. One such example is the prophecy of the coming of a savior with superhuman powers to free an enslaved humanity. I've read many books with this basic premise, and like the Matrix and Terminator movies, most had little to nothing in common with this book. Some predate it (not terribly difficult as it remained unpublished until 2006) and many predate the original copyright date of 1981. [...]

And remember that book has only 143 pages and apparently "the "evidence" portion is by far the majority of the book".

So let's guess: If we conservatively assume that the majority of the book is made up of that "evidence", then the rest should be the actual story on wich the movie is based according to her .

So let's say the majority is 51%, that would be about 73 pages of "evidence" and 70 pages of the actual story (conservatively speaking, because "by far the majority" is actually implying that the evidence portion of the book is much bigger then 51%...).

This further more makes it hard for me to believe that "The Matrix" is based on those at most 70 pages.
And when I listen to her talk, I kind of get the feeing "She can't be the author of "The Matrix"", if you know what I mean".

So everything points for me (as of now) to the direction that Stewart is in for the money, so to speak.
And she desperately tries to sue them to get rich, while she probaply knows that they didn't use her material...

And I guess she is by far not the only one who tries to make money that way...

 

[Tigersoap]

For what is worth, when you have an "original" idea for any kind of creative work, there is a good chance that someone else already thought about it, it's just the way you put things together, finish it and create new connections that makes all the difference.
Ideas don't come out of thin air, so you have to deal with the fact that sometimes there will be resemblances that you have to be careful to call plagiarism.

 

[Keit]

For what is worth, when you have an "original" idea for any kind of creative work, there is a good chance that someone else already thought about it, it's just the way you put things together, finish it and create new connections that makes all the difference.
Ideas don't come out of thin air, so you have to deal with the fact that sometimes there will be resemblances that you have to be careful to call plagiarism.

Yep, for example, there are many cases of scientific discoveries made at the same time by apparently non related people. When they teach you history of science, the name of the "discoverer" often depends on where you live. And while, no doubt, there were many instances of taking credit for someone else's work or stealing ideas, some of them wouldn't happen due to language barrier.

Not sure how something like this could happen (except for maybe ideas ARE "in the air" somehow for those who are able to catch them), but Rupert Sheldrake in his book tied it to the existence of morphogenetic field. He has his "100th monkey" example, where he talks about an idea or skill reaching a "critical mass" of some sort, but it could be probably applied to highly creative or intelligent people being on the same "wavelength" as well.

A very bright female monkey on a small island was taught to wash sweet potatoes in the seawater. She then taught other members of the tribe to do this. When approximately 100 monkeys had learned this procedure, many other remote monkey tribes started washing potatoes in the same manner. But the interesting thing is that these other tribes were situated on other remote islands and also on the mainland. That is, they had no possible way of acquiring this knowledge, other by some form of intuitive universal “sharing”.

 

[Tigersoap]

I think I already linked this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at2NBtq0h_g

For me the book "where good ideas come from" by Steve Johnson dispelled the myth that ideas are unique and that it is really important to share them, otherwise, no new ideas can emerge.
Of course if you throw psychopaths into this, you end up creating copyright laws that stiffle creativity instead of protecting it against such people
Good ideas, for the benefit of mankind, can also be vectored or crushed by those same people.


As for Cloud Atlas, while I am in this topic, I wasn't really thrilled by it after all.
I enjoyed it but it failed to deliver it's promise to me of something really meaningful other than fate and karma across centuries.
Too much fluff.
Not that I was expecting much from it anyway.
I haven't read the book but I suppose it is better.

 

[Zadius Sky]

One thing that does concern me, regarding the Wachowski siblings ... their movies have been consistently amazing (The Matrix, V For Vendetta) ... however the recent court case involving the, apparently real, author of The Matrix, whom the Wachowskis appear to have ripped off ... could it be that there is more to their activities than meets the eye (in a negative sense, I mean)? Or was that case an effort to discredit them and their work? Does anyone know more about this?

There's a couple of threads on that:

Interview with Sophia Stewart - Mother of the Matrix

Sohia Stewart, a black author wins The Matrix Copyright Infringement Case

 

[SeekinTruth]

Ideas are not and cannot be "owned" by anyone. Even copyright laws do not allow the copyrighting of ideas (or the title of a creative piece for that matter) but only the particular execution is copyrightable. If the laws are properly interpreted and enforced (that's a BIG if nowadays) then, anyone claiming the stealing of an idea would not have any legal ground unless they can prove substantial similarity in the execution elements -- and it would help immensely if there's considerable evidence that there was the opportunity and motive to steal the person's work (such as correspondence about the work/submitting for review with the accused offending party).

I'm firmly convinced that ideas are "broadcast in the air," so to speak, and those that have good receivers, receive more of them. FWIW.

 

[Mike]

Besides the quote mentioned earlier:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,28629.msg411537.html#msg411537

to me the most impacting quote and part of the movie was this one:

Haskell Moore: There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well. This movement will never survive, if you join them you and your entire family will be shunned. At best you will exist at pariah to be spat at and beaten, at worse to be lynched or crucified. And for what, for what, no matter what you do it will never amount to anything more than a single drop in a limitless ocean.

Adam Ewing: What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?

It really reminded me of the flapping of butterfly wings and never really knowing or anticipating what kind of impact even small acts or taking a stand can have on another’s life or the future.

Overall, I’m really glad that the movie was made, because it took a chance at exposing to a wider audience the concepts of past lives, reincarnation, and the possibility that life that seems so small can have a wider and bigger meaning. To me the book didn’t really make this apparent, at least after one reading. The movie made these points, but I probably missed the subtleties of the many interactions (I’ll have to watch it again).

 

[H-KQGE]

Besides the quote mentioned earlier:
_http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,28629.msg411537.html#msg411537

to me the most impacting quote and part of the movie was this one:

Haskell Moore: There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well. This movement will never survive, if you join them you and your entire family will be shunned. At best you will exist at pariah to be spat at and beaten, at worse to be lynched or crucified. And for what, for what, no matter what you do it will never amount to anything more than a single drop in a limitless ocean.

Adam Ewing: What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?

It really reminded me of the flapping of butterfly wings and never really knowing or anticipating what kind of impact even small acts or taking a stand can have on another’s life or the future.

Overall, I’m really glad that the movie was made, because it took a chance at exposing to a wider audience the concepts of past lives, reincarnation, and the possibility that life that seems so small can have a wider and bigger meaning. To me the book didn’t really make this apparent, at least after one reading. The movie made these points, but I probably missed the subtleties of the many interactions (I’ll have to watch it again).

I liked it & am glad it was made for the same reason as above. But such movies will hardly make a dent in the minds of many. How many made sense of "The fountain" or "The Matrix?" No? How about the in-your-face "V for Vendetta?" Of course not, many struggle with simple concepts so reality-bending, time-travelling Orwellian-karmic watchamacallits will baffle them. That said, many claimed to have understood "Inception" which wasn't difficult as for starters, it wasn't difficult to understand, & secondly, they kept showing you what was going on & talking about it.

Interesting how Tom Hank's character in the past was trying to murder the guy helping the slave. If the slave hadn't have saved his life (with the aid of the guy to be fair) he couldn't have returned to (his wife? Fiancée?) the "original incarnation" of the cyborg woman (whatever she was, I was dozing cuz it is rather long) & decide to join the "movement" (er, slave abolition?) which would bring about the reaction from Haskell Moore quoted in Bear's post.

More interesting was the always-good Hugo Weaving incarnations. What was that spectre thing about tormenting the future-life Tom Hanks? Then there's the other life where he's a nurse (right out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest!) chasing around Jim Broadbent & co (for past-life treatment of the gay dude I suppose) & the leader of the cops or whatever, killing that freedom-fighting fella that helped the cyborg waitress. I think that the rapid cuts - editing - was helpful or you would've forgotten who was who, & stopped caring what was what. Plenty of powerful quotes in there too. :)

 

[Mikey]

I just watched Cloud Atlas, and I liked it very much because it explores the 'recurrence' theme. I had to read about the plot on Wikipedia though, in order to grasp the story more fully -- it is too complex for a single watch (at least for my brain). Also subtitles are essential for understanding the Pidgin English they speak in the future. There are some quotes which express ideas which sounded very familiar to me:

“Truth is singular. Its 'versions' are mistruths.”

“Travel far enough, you meet yourself.”

“To be is to be perceived. And so to know thyself is only possible through the eyes of the others. The nature of our immortal lives is in the consequences of our words and deeds, that go on and are pushing themselves throughout all time. Our lives are not our own, from womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.”

 

[Gaby]

I just watched Cloud Atlas, and I liked it very much because it explores the 'recurrence' theme. I had to read about the plot on Wikipedia though, in order to grasp the story more fully -- it is too complex for a single watch (at least for my brain). Also subtitles are essential for understanding the Pidgin English they speak in the future. There are some quotes which express ideas which sounded very familiar to me:

Oh yes, I know that some of us have watched it several times. At least I did :D And those who made it had way too much fun with it too. Every time I watched, I found more connections, and more, and more. Everything is connected, literally!