quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
I posted this link in a Matrix thread that you "seen" http://forums.matrixfans.net/showthread.php?s=4f1935a27c038cafee3b42cf3f8d0fb7&th readid=18223

---

A fascinating read, certainly. Lots of it I had concluded myself, but it goes beyond that. Still, I did enjoy the stuff inside the matrix in the third movie, what I didn't buy, and still don't buy, is the connection in the real world. Those comments you quote in the article are neat, but if Neo were really an Android, I'd expect them to consciously realize that. At least that bit would need much more explaining...e.g. by taking 15 minutes from that battle.

1) Overall...enjoyed it. Impressed by the imagery, valued the concepts, and was impressed by the action sequences.

2) It is clear that most vocal (note: not "most" people) carried too much baggage into both sequels. Viewed independent of the first these are entertaining, two hour diversions. Clearly the descriptions of "wretched", "reprehensible", or "it sucks" seem odd when movies like Dungeons & Dragons and The Avengers exist.

3) I think the Morpheus character transition made sense and was appropriate. The man's beliefs and ship were destroyed leaving him with nothing. It might not have been what people wanted, but the change is not unfounded.

4) It sounds as if everyone simply wanted The Matrix to be remade. Let's be honest, the matrix was a one-trick pony. It had one central concept...the story of the first film cannot be redone...revamped...call it whatever you want. You don't like the direction the took with the story...too bad. I personally welcomed a story that did not depend solely on the characters exploits within the Matrix.

5) As far originality goes...overrated. The first matrix was not wholly original...I give that honor to Dark City, which interestingly enough bares many similarities to The Matrix.

6) Understanding the films is not necessary to enjoy them, nor will it ruin the films if you do not. I find both technology and religious parallels quite intriguing, and for the most part I thought they were executed well.

7. Yes...Yes...there was too much philosophical rambling, but of course I actually fell asleep during the middle portion of the first films during the expositions scenes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
I might take that "liar" as more than just a pure insult.

---

The Zion battle had purpose and was far from pointless. It was one of the core elements of the entire series. Saving Zion. The entire trilogy was building up to this moment. I find it hard to believe that a plot point this large could be ignored and forgoten. How can you critque the film and miss one of its main elements?

Of course the action was chaotic it was a war scene. But it wasn't so chaotic that you coldn't tell what was going on. Having watched documentaries on WW1, WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam I would have to say that chaotic is what war would feel like. Hell, I just watched a show on PBS last night on recipients of the Medal of Honor. And almost every soldier that was interviewd mentioned at least once how chaotic, disorderd, and confusing battles could be. Choosing to roughen up the style of film making was choice that brought the viewer into the movie on a psychological level.

QUOTE Marian Schedenig
I enjoyed the first two Matrix movies while at the same time I absolutely loathe the Bruckheimer crap.
END QUOTE

Its so rediculous that you even mention Bruckheimer's name. It's silly anytime someone doesn't like action in a movie his is the first name to come up. How typical. First Bruckheimer didn't make the movie so I assume you're still talking about the style of the Zion scene. This is where you start making contradictory statements. Bruckheimer is known for making highly stylized flashy choriographed movies (Bad Boys 2 and Pirates of the Caribbian are two good recent examples). And now you critisize Revolutions for having his style. And yet in your posts you allude to the fact that there wasn't any good choreography and that its chaotic and pointless. Make up your mind...or don't reference someone without knowing all the facts.

QUOTE Marian Schedenig
"The power of the One extends beyond the Matrix" is neither an explanation nor something that makes sense to me, and I haven't heard any more explanation for it in the movie, or read any on the threads I've seen.
END QUOTE

Here we go again with having to have everything spelled out and handed to us. If you want everything clarified maybe you should think of taking some college classes on AI study, quantum physics, computer science etc. They won't leave anything out for you. Walking into a movie theater and expecting everything to have a nice and tidey answer was your mistake not the movies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
Here we go again with having to have everything spelled out and handed to us. If you want everything clarified maybe you should think of taking some college classes on AI study, quantum physics, computer science etc. They won't leave anything out for you. Walking into a movie theater and expecting everything to have a nice and tidey answer was your mistake not the movies.

---

In case it interests you, I *am* studying computer sciences, and I do plan on specializing in AI. This and the not spelling everything out is exactly why I enjoyed Revolutions so much. But there's a difference in hinting at things without telling them clearly and simply doing stuff that doesn't make sense.

As for the lack explinations I could site all sorts of examples of popular books that do the same thing to various degrees. But off hand I'll only site one. The Bible. I'm not trying to start a religous debate, just an example. No one knows what Jesus did between the ages of 12 and 30 other then he was a carpenter. No explination of why he started preaching. Or how about the creation of earth. It's a few paragraphs long. One day God made that...one day God did this. And it was good. So for a book with so many holes in it its sold fairly well for the past 2000 years. These sort of vagaries are very common in 'high' literature as well, not just modern day sci-fi movies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
I have noticed a trend in friends over the years that work in simialr fields. Some are programers, some are Electrical Enginiers, etc. And the one thing I have noticed about all of them is that life has to fit into equations for them. It needs a certin order And if somthing doesnt work out or happen the way they expect or want they get thrown off track very easily. They want everything explained to them. They want everything to make sense according to the rules that they have set up in their head. Life isn't like that. And neither are movies.

---

It certainly sounds like life is like that for them. As for a movie not making sense according to the audience's perception of reality, this requires the suspension of disbelief - and that requires characters worth suspending disbelief for. I wonder if the Matrix sequels really gave us much to work with here.

quote:

---

As for the lack explinations I could site all sorts of examples of popular books that do the same thing to various degrees. But off hand I'll only site one. The Bible. I'm not trying to start a religous debate, just an example. No one knows what Jesus did between the ages of 12 and 30 other then he was a carpenter. No explination of why he started preaching.

---

I think that point is reasonably well explained in a number of passages in John chapters 1 and 3 and to some extent also in the synagogue incident of Luke 4:16-21.

quote:

---

Or how about the creation of earth. It's a few paragraphs long. One day God made that...one day God did this. And it was good.

---

With respect to those who believe in divine madness and such things, the Christian account posits a creation process that is so simple* that to describe it in more than a few paragraphs would require the kind of verbose philosophising that perforates the Wachowski Bros. writing in the Matrix sequels. So maybe they should've written it... Mmmm ... it probably would've been much deeper as well, though I wonder at what cost? (rhetorical question - noone is obliged to answer unless they have views on how the Wachowski Bros would've written the Bible! )

I have a much more fundamental problem with the whole Matrix thing than any of the characters, or any type of disbelief, or any equations for life: Why are the machines so dumb?
They know the independent humans have a community in Zion, and they know this community was (mostly) created by Matrix-rejected material. So here we come to the fundamental flaw of this whole movie: if I don't need humans for energy anymore, and I know they create rebellious underground movements, I wouldn't just dump Neo & Co. in a dumpster where they can be collected and rehabilitated by other survivors, I'd shred them to pieces and dump them in acid. That's the end of the war.
No more living rejected humans = no more rebellious humans = no more war = machines can go back to their purposeless life. What is the machines' purpose any way? Certainly not to make war on the humans. If that were the case, they wouldn't accept peace as it would mean their collective suicide.

I can suspend disbelief long enough to believe that a white-haired, white-eyed African can manipulate the weather, but I'm having a hard time suspending disbelief long enough to believe that these fairly intelligent machines would be so dumb to just dump humans just so they can wage war on them, and then suddenly accept peace.

Marian--I think there was link to a fairly well thought out explanation to the finer points of the story. Regarding Neo's ability to control the machines in the real world (and see them in orange soda glow) was that he is actually part machine. The idea was that his brain was genetically enhanced (or something similar) and he is actually part of the machine "collective." This would explain how "The One" program could be reinserted into the matrix. I guess there are some quotes going all the way back to the first film that my suggest this. The other thread on this board has the link...I would check it out...I'm sure parts of it are a little off base, but for the most part it seems fairly confident.

Dinko--I'd agree that the basic plot point of the entire series that leads to the rest of the story is flawed. I would not go so far as to say that this single issue reduces this trilogy to a pointless action film however. I can think of many examples of good films that began with a flawed premise or key plot event to get the story going. The most recent example I can think of is Minority Report. The director of PreCrime was obviously an intelligent guy, yet he concocted such an elaborate scheme to kill the precog's mother. Since PreCrime only existed in Washington D.C. at the time, why did he not simply pay someone to kidnap (without the intention of killing), take her outside the PreCrime sphere of influence and then have her killed at a later time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Since PreCrime only existed in Washington D.C. at the time, why did he not simply pay someone to kidnap (without the intention of killing), take her outside the PreCrime sphere of influence and then have her killed at a later time.

---

Because if he hired someone WITHOUT the intention of killing her, then the Precogs would have seen that he really did have the intention of killing her at a later time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Marian--I think there was link to a fairly well thought out explanation to the finer points of the story. Regarding Neo's ability to control the machines in the real world (and see them in orange soda glow) was that he is actually part machine. The idea was that his brain was genetically enhanced (or something similar) and he is actually part of the machine "collective." This would explain how "The One" program could be reinserted into the matrix.

---

I read that thread, and found it mostly fascinating. Still, the one thing I don't buy is that Neo was an android and nobody noticed it. Genetically enhanced brain, I can probably accept that. But other than that he has some additional visual sensors and an uplink antenna, yet they didn't find any of this stuff. In a movie series that's from the beginning based on rules and obviously works by having a fundamental concept that makes sense, yet doesn't reveal it easily and instead gives us a cliffhanger with the intention of getting us to try and figure out how it all fits together, I still say the finale doesn't make enough sense.

Same with the Matrix.

What is the Meatrix? Watch it to find out.

Dylan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dylan:
I don't know, I personally enjoyed this flash animation more than I've enjoyed any of the Matrix films (which I don't like, by the way):
http://peta.org/feat/meatrix/

What is the Meatrix? Watch it to find out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dylan:
I thought mentioning it in this thread was a good idea. It is pretty stupid, but I thought it was funny because it's serious. It's better than any Bruckheimer production though. Middle school students made it for that animal rights site, by the way. Anybody know any better parodies of the Matrix? I thought this one was funny because it's serious, but I don't know.

[Message edited by Dylan on 11-13-2003]

---