Rocketboy1313 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:21 am
clearspira wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:20 pm
Because people lie/exaggerate when
they have something to gain? Like, for example, Lana Wachowski who has spent every waking Twitter moment since the right adopted the red pill as their symbol losing her mind over it. The thing is friend, is that the following conversation, the one that is so often used to prove that the Wachowski's were referring to gender and transpeople, can indeed be used to describe any ideology you think is controlling the world and that every institution is in on except for you and your buddies. Feminism, capitalism, socialism, fascism, religion, round earthers. Doesn't matter. Its just that the right managed to steal it first and Lana hates them for it.
The author of the work is a trans person who said the movie was about transgenderism.
And you think she is just saying that in retrospect because she dislikes wingnuts coopting her movie for their stupid worldview? And refuting them is the thing she has to gain?
So, rather than look at the creators of the work, the obvious symbolism which has been pointed out many times prior to "red pill" being a term used by right wing chuds, and the stuff that was in the production notes about a transgender character being in the script till being cut... You are instead trying to pick apart the script?
I repeat my earlier point, the film is so obviously what it is that trying to pick it apart to argue this is fucking baffling. You sound like a loon.
Symbolism is in the eye of the beholder. To some, the fact that Deckard has glowing eyes for a single scene is absolute proof that he is a replicant as it is symbolic of replicant eyes. To others, his eyes just caught the light. To some, Mr Anderson becoming Neo is symbolic of a transperson choosing his/her new name. To others, its because it was his online alias and nothing more. It would be like me meeting Morpheus and him calling me Clearspira. It is something that can be interpreted in many different ways and you are refusing to see that.
And BTW, let me ask you this although I do not expect an answer: whatever problems the Wachowski's had in getting their trans character to the fore in The Matrix is because they were little known creators still beholden to the studio. AFTER the first Matrix, they were juggernauts who got permission for two sequels in which they clearly had creative freedom for.
So why no trans character in Reloaded or Revolutions? That was apparently the whole secret plot behind the first film and yet, as I have said previously, the allegory breaks the moment you include the Sequels for there is no apparent continuation of the theme. The Matrix is now nothing more than a fantasy invented by an old white man to create Neo after Neo in order to save Zion. The closest we get to LGBT representation here are the two women who kiss during the Zion rave.
Shall I tell you what i would have done? Do what the Wachowskis wanted to do with the Switch character with Niobe. And you know what? If they established Morpheus as being gay (easily done given how Morpheus was not established as being hetero) then you actually do not need to change the film much at all given how it is already a B-plot that they were once in a relationship together.
Would actually make for quite an interesting plot now that I think about it, Morpheus falling in love with the male-bodied version of Niobe in the real world only to find out the truth the first time they visit The Matrix together which then causes strife as Morpheus has to confront some of his prejudices. Maybe the reason ''why'' they broke up in the first place was because Commander Lock was more progressive in such matters than him? Maybe it would create a conflict between the two as the end of The Matrix would mean Niobe being imprisoned inside her male body forever as opposed to these fleeting moments of freedom that she currently enjoys?
Sounds better than the generic love triangle we otherwise got imo.