matthewNov 05, 2003 at 10:06PM

over-rated, under-developed.

another typical over-under approach to making money.

jdidddyNov 05, 2003 at 10:18PM

you haven’t seen it yet matthew, we’re supposed to go tomorrow!

ctm3Nov 05, 2003 at 10:20PM

It was pretty intense as an action flick goes. I was not let down by the W’s like many of you may say, and I left feeling like it was the end of a journey. It all makes sense now looking back at the other two films I’m not left with any real burning questions. It was not hard to understand, and had all of the elements of what I wanted to see in the film including those that made the first film fun. I liked it better than Reloaded which lacked a sense of cohesiveness. Theres really nothing else I’m going to say about it until you see it, but it was facinating to see a film after having it be discussed in such detail on here (well the other threads but they are now closed). No one got everything right. It is an enlightening experience to see ideas that we had talked about be played out, and to see the film finally fill all of the gaps that were impossible to show in words as well as new ones we had not thought about. Perhaps some of you will find that wasn’t so. It is bittersweet to see the end of this trilogy, as I’m not really into comics ;-)

“It’s beautiful…” - Trinity.

GregNov 05, 2003 at 10:21PM

Is Jar Jar Binks in this movie?

Jon GalesNov 05, 2003 at 10:31PM

I was entertained, but I got a vibe that The Matrix 4: The Easter Story could be coming down the pipe…

Overall it was good. Although I can just sense all the hate-comments… z

kmcdon3960Nov 05, 2003 at 10:37PM

Definetly better then the first one, Glad I got to see it tuesday night on the big screen (wheee projectionist)

Paul HoffmanNov 05, 2003 at 10:50PM

You mean that Frodo doesn’t get kicked out of Hogwarts in the end?

Brian HessNov 05, 2003 at 10:52PM

Could someone go ahead and spoil it for me? I was so disappointed by the 2nd flick, I’m waiting for the DVD on the 3rd. BTW, here’s Ebert’s review.

Michael SpringfieldNov 05, 2003 at 10:55PM

Cookies need lovin’!

JerryNov 05, 2003 at 10:57PM

I enjoyed it. I was conscious, a few times, of sitting there thinking, “okay, this is not so bad… keep going, keep going, don’t blow it…” In the end, I was not disappointed.

Was it perfect? No. Plot holes? Yep. I need to mentally process it for a while.

The intensity of the CGI Zion battle scenes was amazing.

JasonNov 05, 2003 at 11:28PM

Cinematically spectacular. Lots of eye candy.

I was really let down when I realied that Neo’s actions at the end of the Matrix2 was because he was some sort of super-human/super-powered hero. I saw the end of Matrix2 and thought that the “real world with Zion in it” was another level of the matrix. Pure Beaudrillard with a Matrix within a Matrix within a Matrix… If I wake up from a dream, how do I know that I woke up and didn’t just dream that I woke up from a dream?

I think the movies would have been better if they wouldn’t have left reality behind. I’ve never been a big fan of the complete violation of physics in SF, and would have been more impressed if at the end of Matrix2 / beginning of Matrix3 Neo had realied that they were still in the matrix.

My $0.02

DanNov 05, 2003 at 11:39PM

I was one of the contributors to the old thread about the last flick (not going to link to it here), and as such hope that you’ve got plans for keeping us jackals from devouring all of your bandwidth again.

Many spoilers here … Don’t bother reading if you haven’t seen it, or want to see it with a completely open mind.

I don’t really know what to think. On seeing Reloaded, I remember feeling a similar sense of dissatisfaction at the lack of cohesiveness mentioned above. After a few days, however, Reloaded sort of congealed in my head a bit, and I found it better than the sum of its parts. I liked it more for the questions it left than for its actual content. Very much a puzzle.

I think in the end I’ll find the same sort of “peace” with Revolutions.
Unlike Reloaded, this one did a better job of intertwining action and dialogue, so there what few plodding “a-choice-is-a-choice-
because-you’ve-made-the-choice-to-choose-not-to-choose” moments did occur were easier to bear.

The climactic love scene, was one exception - there were cheers throughout the theater when it finally ended. Way too much. Way too overboard.

As to the action, it was pretty amazing to watch, but left something to be desired - essentially, I felt overloaded. How many more times can they blow up a sentinel? How many more times can Neo and Smith punch each other? Eventually, it just became repetitious …

… which is a good segue to the central problem I had with the movie. To my knowledge, it didn’t conclude any of the issues raised in the first movie. The “war,” as defined in the first movie, was about freeing people from the Matrix. The second two redefined it as a real war, between attacking machines and desparate humans trying to defend themselves in the real world.

The conclusion of Revolutions did put an end to the real-world war, but left the machines with farms of enslaved people (although “free to leave if they wanted to,” hadn’t they been already? (“take the blue pill!”)).

And for all the talk in the movie about how things had changed htis time, it seemed that overall, they hadn’t. It was just the same - a revolution, a full circle. a dragon swallowing its tail. And yeah, it could just as easily have ended with another “Neo” waking up at his/her terminal.

So to those of you who have been futily pondering this all along with me, I ask you to prove me wrong. Alternately, explain why this was a satisfying ending to you? Did anything at all change (and who was that little girl?! Has anyone started doing the research on what her name meant in in Sanskrit or Indian or whatever)?

For me it was just hollow and empty. Pretty, but empty.

The love scene above aside, and the other embarassing outpourings of sincerity aside, what bothered me most were the stupid old-style willing-suspension-of-disbelief omissions (sort of like Trinity’s needing to give Neo the “I-love-you” speech in the first movie, allowing Smith to trap him).

I thought the W’s were better than this. How in the hell could those have been the best defenses Zion could have had had? Couldn’t they have had at least *one* EMP in-house? Or a bunch of them in the tunnels? Couldn’t they have covered up the front of those weird Mech-style fighters with a big piece of bullet-proof glass?

More later I’m sure.

MattNov 05, 2003 at 11:42PM

I thought this one was the goldilocks Matrix. The first Matrix was a little light on philosophy, where the second one wanted to spell *every little thing* out. This one strikes a perfect balance with its imagery (Neo’s blindness, the burst above the clouds, how he’s carried at the end, et cetera) was beautifully done and very effective. It was just right.

To some extent it was the same philosophical lines: the Merovingian represents determinism, Neo, the Oracle, and their ilk are fighting for free will. The clairavoyant Oracle who seemed to represent determinism in earlier scenes declared she really didn’t know what was going to happen. It all tied together nicely.

Overall I really enjoyed it, as much if not far more than the first one even.

DanNov 05, 2003 at 11:45PM

Spoilers again:

Well, to save us all some time, here’s one pretty good guess at her name (can’t seem to create a link in Mozilla for some reason, so here’s the URL: http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/hindu/sati.htm)

I’m not quite sure how the Oracle immolated herself on her husband - the architect’s - funeral pyre (more below on Sati) , but based both on the Oracle’s puddle-nap and the final conversation in the film, this was very clearly part of the answer.

Thanks to Dr. Jyotsna Kamat

Sati (Su-thi , a.k.a. suttee) is the traditional Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband’s funeral pyre.

“Sati” means a virtuous woman. A woman who dies burning herself on her husbands funeral fire was considered most virtuous, and was believed to directly go to heaven, redeeming all the forefathers rotting in hell, by this “meritorious” act. The woman who committed Sati was worshipped as a Goddess, and temples were built in her memory.

Sati was prevalent among certain sects of the society in ancient India, who either took the vow or deemed it a great honor to die on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Ibn Batuta (1333 A.D.) has observed that Sati was considered praiseworthy by the Hindus, without however being obligatory.

The Agni Purana declares that the woman who commits sahagamana goes to heaven. However, Medhatiti pronounced that Sati was like suicide and was against the Shastras, the Hindu code of conduct. It is believed that they were not coerced, although several wives committed Sati. The majority of the widows did not undergo Sati.

Dr. ZiraNov 06, 2003 at 12:21AM

Three words: The Phantom Menace.
No, wait - I think Phantom Menace actually had more kung fu.
Thanks for the interesting info on Sati, Dan. Good to know it’s not Hindu for “funeral pyre of open-ended-franchise-milking-sequel”.

SylviaNov 06, 2003 at 12:57AM

I literally just got home from the theater. It was… ok. I think I need time to process it and form a proper opinion, but for now I’ll just stick with the ‘ok’.

Spoilers…

It seemed way too straight forward, as compared to the first 2. But! I enjoyed the intensity of the battle, and must admit I gave into my weakness as a woman and cried like a freakin baby when Trinity snuffed it. The only things I disliked? the white light from behind the sunglasses - mleh. just looked bad. Also, the face that spoke to Neo and negotiated with him and how it looked while Smith was flyin around in that building while fighting with Neo. It looked like a Roadrunner/Coyote cartoon.

Not that I could do any better ;)

jxdxbxNov 06, 2003 at 1:14AM

Why do so many people seem to have wanted the real world (Zion) to just have been another level of Matrix? I think Neo’s real world powers are perfectly understandable. He’s partly inside the Matrix at all times, and so in the real world, he is able to affect machines. His power is not limited to, but it still stems from, his mastery of the matrix.

This is made totally clear when he is shown to be able to be in the Matrix without being plugged in.

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 1:38AM

The ‘Real World’ should have been another level of The Matrix because it doesn’t explain otherwise how Smith was able to get inside Bane.

I’d add a lot more but I’m tired. I would like to ask why the machines didn’t just destroy Zion with a bio-agent? All they would have to do is pinpoint someone who is about to be freed from The Matrix and then inject their ‘real’ body with a highly contagious, but delayed virus and then flush them. Once they got picked up and carted back to Zion the virus would activate and kill every living thing there… I mean, aside from that making for a really crappy ending. Still, that seems more like the thinking of a machine to me, than 250,000 sentinals. So much for your logical mind, Morpheus.

michaelNov 06, 2003 at 1:53AM

Here’s my theory. I don’t think the W’s looked at this as “one big movie” as I’ve read in the past. They had a great story for the first one, but they had no fricken’ idea of where to go with it. So they try to confuse everybody with the 2nd, and the 3rd says, “Fuck it…let’s end it fun…Even we don’t know where we’re going…”

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 1:57AM

Yeah, I felt that the film felt like it was just trying to end itself. Instead of answering questions or posing new ones I think it was merely ment to end. Not that we weren’t warned. The tag line was “Everything that has a beggining has an end.”

AlexNov 06, 2003 at 2:10AM

[Spoiler] So… was it Neo who destroyed Smith, or did Neo die and the Machine providing the link into the Matrix finish the job after Neo was consumed? It sure looked like Neo was “infected” with the Smith virus right before he was torn apart. And in the real world, his body gave a jolt before being jacked with energy from the machine…

SylviaNov 06, 2003 at 2:14AM

i apologize, but have to add. michael and supercrisis, i think you guys said what i was trying to get out, but couldnt. no one knew where this was going - they were just messing with us. so they had to end it. no new questions; no new debates.

its just upsetting that the second one made it seem as if the storyline had potential, but i guess i sort of saw this 2 hours of absolute cheese coming as soon as the line “he’s doing his superman thing again” was spoken.

what if? that’s what i got out of it, and that’s all i’m left with.

dowingbaNov 06, 2003 at 2:18AM

The Smith-in-the-real-world scenerio is the one part that makes sense. The guy was plugged into the Matrix, so Smith was able to infect and take over his mind. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. The Neo-having-powers-in-the-real-world is the part that makes no sense. And how he can be in the Matrix without being plugged in.

And did anyone notice that, after Neo gets saved from the metro station and talks to the Oracle and stuff, he is then seen being “unplugged” by his friends on the ship? What? I thought he was in the Matrix without being plugged in, lying in a coma on that table. Is there some continuity error here? How did Neo get out of the Matrix from his coma, and when did this happen? Did he answer a phone and wake up on the table? I demand answers! And also, just after getting saved from the metro, he says he can’t go back yet, he has to talk to the Oracle. So he hasn’t been back yet. So he just magically winds up in that chair with the wire in his head, or something.

Derek K. MillerNov 06, 2003 at 2:37AM

I never thought “Star Wars” had any deep philosophical meaning, even back when I was 10 and the movies were good. But they were still fun, like “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was too. Can we let these Matrix movies be fun too? Just fun? Please?

KeithNov 06, 2003 at 3:08AM

I liked it better than Reloaded, there were still problems, but I thought the ending was alright. Could have done with out the cheezy dialogue and the love story.

NumerologyFanNov 06, 2003 at 3:31AM

Reverentiously, I am very compelled to submerge in the michael’s theory :P

(I mean :

M1- Wow, an enlightment, an outstanding-of-the-crew film. The W’s dream film, maybe just the young age freaking ideal job.

But, it makes people want more, and gave us money so…

M2: ok, you all guys, We W’s overwork your already fried brains with a lot of ideas and numerology, and philosophy, so, bring your money and devotion here to my cause …

Fuk, We W’s got to do another film yet, and dont want to being asked to do a 4th, so just a good ending it would be…

M3: Ok, we W’s ve got enuff of all this Matrix crap. We W’s end it in a sad way, just not to end it as a fairy tale. Oh yes, they both got to die, and We W’s Reaffirm, to all you who hasnt adedd to aour Neo Church: Neo is Jesus. Neo in the cross. Neo choosing to give his life for all people’s and defeating Satan*cough*Smith*cough* in the process. Neo goes to somewhere full of light. Neo in the sun (heaven).

DID YOU GOT IT, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

of course , to you mistic We W’s give the Yin Yang stuff Neo-the same-as-Smith.

You got fun in the first, we got money and fun, you got your brain fried in the second, we got even more money and fun, You got …(we dont care really what you got)…, so…

This means you saw the three films = We W’s are happy, SWIM in money and of course we had fun.

:S but that doesnt mean the trilogy would not be in my desk all the time ;)

PS: Hey, BTW, you W’s, I have even some more money… Dont you have any new film soon? XP

PS2: So, I believe now in the little writers/directors/productors. REmember where the w’s were AFTER M Trilogy?

PS3: I ever liked the first more.

FreonNov 06, 2003 at 3:49AM

Alex asked whether Neo destroyed Smith or the Machine. In the first movie Neo enters Smith and they become one, split apart and they both are different. Smith becomes a virus who destroyes other programs and copies itself. In the second one Smith tries to enter Neo but Neo fights him off. In this one Neo realizes that to destroy Smith he has to let Smith enter him. Smith is no longer a virus and is under control of the Machine again.

About the continuity problem Dwingba mentions above. The reason Neo went into a coma was because his mind made a connection with the Matrix while he was in the Real world. He wasn’t jacked in when he stopped the sentinals. But because he made a connection without the hardware he went into Limbo, the place between the Matrix and the Real world. He was let out of Limbo but still couldn’t leave the Matrix until he had a proper connection. I don’t think he could go in and out of the Matrix at will. It was an accident that according to the Oracle should have killed him.
Of course it could just be a continuity problem. :)

grimNov 06, 2003 at 3:56AM

matrix is poo…times three.

Spoon BoyNov 06, 2003 at 4:47AM

Any person who doesn’t recognize The Matrix as the single most profound piece of fiction ever conceived simply doesn’t understand it.

MartinNov 06, 2003 at 4:48AM

All the analysis in the world can’t change how bad this movie was.

It was like watching the sequels to Highlander.

Awful.

Simply awful.

Jacob PiilNov 06, 2003 at 5:04AM

I really enjoyed Revolutions. Hell I enjoyed the whole trilogy. I think people are overanalyzing it. I catch myself doing that sometimes too. But try to step back and just enjoy it as an amazing sci-fi thriller.

LaserfaceNov 06, 2003 at 5:34AM

I saw “the making of matrix” or something like that after that I understood that Warshawski brothers or twins was not capable of making a triology, they just seemed too stupid.

I will honor the effect people and some designers, this was the really talented people here.

diemkaiNov 06, 2003 at 5:38AM

profound eh?? I told you so didn’t I!!!

ChoireNov 06, 2003 at 8:54AM

Martin’s quite right. At the Union Square 11:50 p.m. showing, the audience was cackling openly at the dialgue. It’s execrable. It’s one of the worst scripts ever actually made into a movie (and I speak as someone who saw Waterworld on opening day).

nixNov 06, 2003 at 9:15AM

Wasn’t the overarching goal and purpose of this trilogy to take us through the story/journey of saving Zion??? Wasn’t that the goal from day one??? (Sure the long-term objective is to save humanity, but realistically the first step is to save Zion.) Wasn’t that why Morpheus and everyone were running around in the first movie? To find The One who will save Zion?
- In the first movie they find The One who will save Zion.
- In the second they manuever the pieces and gain the knowledge to help save Zion.
- In the third all the pieces come together and Zion is saved.

So why is everyone so damn critical and upset when that complete story is actually told? I’m baffled. People hate philosophical speak. People hate the action. What does everyone want? A romantic comedy? Hell. The W Bros aren’t stupid. They’ve created a story with more meaning and depth then we could imagine and they chose to only peel back so many layers of the onion intentionally. You have to use your brain to peel back the rest. It’s genius really, because 10 years from now we’ll all still be debating what it means.

When you step back, push aside all the theories and really take a wholistic view of this project, it is AMAZING. Every line of philosophical dialogue has meaning and purpose. Every action intention and consequence. Pieced all together we see a storyline so deep, complex and cohesive that I think we have experienced a rare, rare feat in stroytelling and cinema.

I thought all three installments were incredible and meant to criticized as one story. I don’t think you can judge one movie over the other…it is all one story told over six hours. It is a story that explores man’s search for meaning, love and survival. Some parts of life are filled with philosophical dialogue, some action and adventure. The sum of all that makes a life’s story. Either you liked the story and bought into it or you didn’t. I for one did.

Jacob MartinNov 06, 2003 at 9:20AM

Yeah, this movie sucked for lots of reasons. I can tolerate a reasonable amount of plot holes in any movie, but failing to explain how Neo could be in the matrix without being plugged in is a cardinal sin. The only way this could have made sense is if Zion were within the Matrix (and this would have been a cool angle to run at things). Instead, the Ws bottled it and went for the whole “mysticism” thing. Having seen the two sequels, I am now determined not to buy either of them on DVD. In all honesty, I’d rather just forget they existed.

JayceeNov 06, 2003 at 9:31AM

Well … I like it.
a lot of stuff for the eyes … Everythink I could expect from a science fiction movies was is the third chapter.
But, I wonder why the objective of the first one (which was, if I remeber well, destroy the machines) has been change to be in peace with the machine …

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 9:40AM

Good point Nix. I still like the first film best, but Reloaded is growing on me slowly but surely and this film will too, I’m sure.

I think the problem with Revolutions tho is that it didn’t feel like The Matrix… there was almost no signature bullet-time, no hip soundtrack, no stylish moves. It felt like a completely different movie. Sure the bullet-time in the rain was cool, but it felt underused and unimportant. Sure there was a scene at a bizarre fetish club, but it didn’t really yield much. Sure there’s a big fight at the end, but I think the Burly Brawl in Reloaded was a lot more satisfying. And when did Smith learn to fly and not get his ass beat by Neo?

Ultimately this film was good, I think. I woke up this morning still thinking about the end. Which tells me that it wasn’t all bad. It just didn’t feel complete enough. Whereas Reloaded had too much action and not enough real story, Revolutions has too much real story and not enough action… from a Matrix point of view. Yes lots of stuff blew up, but it got very repetitive.

I think it’s best to see the film and then draw your own conclusions. At the very least it’s a spectacular piece of CG work.

nixNov 06, 2003 at 9:55AM

Rabbit trail with spoilers:

So didn’t Smith call the Oracle “mom” in the kitchen (M3)? If so, then try this on for size. The Oracle has been running the show here the whole time to try and pulled off the ultimate hack against the machines (and the Architect).

Follow along: The Oracle created (thus becoming “mom”) and passed the “Smith Virus” (the virus needed to set Smith free and wreak havoc on the Matrix) to Neo in the first movie (M1) through the cookie she gives him at their first meeting. Neo is unaffective, because it is not written for him. Neo then unknowingly passes the virus to Smith at the end of M1 when he enters him. Smith in his own mind is “set free”, but in reality is simply unknowingly serving the purposes of the Oracle. He is a virus that is programmed to replicate and gain power.

Smith then becomes a self-perpetuatiing virus that did not exist in the previous six cycles of the Matrix. He becomes the wild card. The one factor the machines didn’t count on. The Oracle set it up this way because she saw the bigger picture and believed Neo really could break the cycle…he had more mojo than the previous “ones”…but she needed a barginning chip to take to the machines to bring peace (the Smith Virus).

Once here plan is put into motion the machines are faced with a two-fold problem. Either destroy the humans (and Neo) and risk having Smith overrun the Matrix thus loosing control of it. Or use Neo (who was being used all along by the Oracle to serve her purpose with cookies, candy, etc.) to stop Smith at the cost of breaking the Matrix cycle and bringing peace to the humans of Zion.

Ultimately, I believe the Oracle pulled off a coup. She released a virus into the system to basically hold it hostage (Smith) and then presented the cure (Neo) in order to secure her goal (peace).

This all comes together very well when you look at the last bit of dialogue between her and the Architect. It’s almost like she’s saying…”See, I can shake things up and change the way the system works. Let’s see where it goes from here.”

She started with freeing and protecting Zion…her next move might be on a much larger scale.

DanNov 06, 2003 at 9:55AM

Spoon Boy says:

Any person who doesn’t recognize The Matrix as the single most profound piece of fiction ever conceived simply doesn’t understand it.

» by Spoon Boy on November 06, 2003 at 04:47:06 ET

Ah, Spoon Boy. I was hoping you wouldn’t show up.

Anyone who makes a statement this banal and stupid simply hasn’t read or watched any other fiction. Or they’re in their early teens. Or they’re trolling.

webNov 06, 2003 at 10:07AM

If it ended like every other action story, It would have predictable. And people would have complained over it. I thought the movie was great. Very entertaining, it was getting a little too sappy for a “matrix” film.

The dialogue was great, you didnt see the twist coming. The fight sequences were awesome, what is everybody’s problem??

spygeekNov 06, 2003 at 10:09AM

I’m still digesting things, but did anyone else have trouble with how long it took Neo to realize that Smith was inside Bane? I mean, Jesus! He was talking exactly like Smith and referring to Neo as Mr. Anderson…so why did it take Neo like, 16 days to catch on? And Neo, of all people, should understand that normal boundaries no longer applied, thereby allowing Smith inside a human.

I did also notice, as someone else mentioned, that when Neo returned from Limbo it looked like they un-jacked him.

I knew I should have gone and gotten popcorn when Smith and Neo faced off. Their fights are always pointless.

l-dopaNov 06, 2003 at 10:13AM

Like the face of God, weeping.

danNov 06, 2003 at 10:26AM

nix says:
Wasn’t the overarching goal and purpose of this trilogy to take us through the story/journey of saving Zion??? Wasn’t that the goal from day one???

I think you’re somewhere between wrong and very wrong wrong here, but would have to watch the first movie again to really remember. I can say with some certainty that it was not “the overarching goal … from day one.” The goal in that movie was framed as freeing humanity from the Matrix. Simple as that. If you recall, in the first movie, Zion wasn’t even under attack.

nix says:
(Sure the long-term objective is to save humanity, but realistically the first step is to save Zion.)

This is a decent way of re-stating it: as many people appear to be saying, Reloaded and Revolutions were really an entirely different story tacked on haphazardly at the end. Hamfistedly saving Zion concluded that story arc, but really left the first one untouched. Remember, the world is still exactly the same: all of those people are still trapped in there, and there is still just one remaining city of humans, which happens to also be an underground Burning Man festival.

The thing is, that may well have been the point: this was just another revolution in an endless loop. Like Col. Sanders explained in Reloaded, Neo was a yin, an irregularity whose existence required the presence of a yang, Smith. So far as I can see this movie seems simply to have removed them both.

nix says:
Wasn’t that why Morpheus and everyone were running around in the first movie? To find The One who will save Zion?
- In the first movie they find The One who will save Zion.
- In the second they manuever the pieces and gain the knowledge to help save Zion.
- In the third all the pieces come together and Zion is saved.


Again, I’d have to see it again to be 100% sure, but I’m 99% sure that Zion wasn’t in any danger in 1. The “war” meant something different in that movie.

nix says:
I’m baffled. People hate philosophical speak. People hate the action. What does everyone want?

Better execution, I think. The “philosophy” of the first movie was pretty much airtight, and the visuals, revolutionary. The focus in that movie was about the entire real world being a lie, which means that they have license to do amazing things in a seemingly real worlds. In revolutions and reloaded, because it was the real “real world,” people’s were less willing to suspend disbelief.

Also, the mystic dialogue in 1 was tolerable because the underlying story about the real world being false was so compelling. This go-round, there were too many plot holes (I mentioned some above), and the mystic melodrama was way too high. Personally I didn’t hate the action: I was awed by it, but the bored by it, because it became repetitious. In a way, that’s not bad. Nothing was left out, it just conveyed how hopeless the battles were - but it was still boring, either way.

nix says:
It’s genius really, because 10 years from now we’ll all still be debating what it means.

That doesn’t necessarily make it genius. That can just as easily make it incomprensible and incohorent story logic that was foisted on an audience that decided to be relatively forgiving thanks to the unfulfilled promise of the first movie.

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 10:28AM

I think the posts relating to Sati are skipping the obvious there. To me it look as if Neo is the “virtuous woman.”

When he sees the machines after he is blinded he sees them as flames. Nowhere is this more evident than his first true vision of Smith inside Bane. When he dies he dies by being consumed by Smith. Consumed by the flames, not of Trinity’s funeral pyre but at least what led to her death.

When the machines carry of his body at the end I got a feeling they were raclaiming his body - they would use what they could and dispose of the rest.

We later see Sati actively rewriting the matrix with the beautiful sunrise - “I did it for Neo” - showing us that she is now the one, she will be worshipped as a goddess because in the matrix she is a goddess, she is 011 to Neo’s 101 and a reasonable followup. (Yes in 2 we saw all images of Neo on the architects screens behind Neo’s head - that was a visual clue for us that there were multiple ‘the one’s’ before and not evidence that all of them were Keanu Reeves.)

And I missed the first few minutes of the movie and everything, basically, up until just before Neo offers to carry Sati’s father’s bag. So maybe I missed something important to her story.

“Sati” means a virtuous woman. A woman who dies burning herself on her husbands funeral fire was considered most virtuous, and was believed to directly go to heaven, redeeming all the forefathers rotting in hell, by this “meritorious” act. The woman who committed Sati was worshipped as a Goddess, and temples were built in her memory.
>>>

GarrettNov 06, 2003 at 10:31AM

Okay, first of all: it’s ridiculous to say that this trilogy was not supposed to happen, that this movie was just “thrown together to end it,” or that they don’t all work together.

This trilogy was absolutely meant to be one film, broken up for distribution. In fact, even if you separate the first film, the last two could be watched back-to-back, without editing, and they would work perfectly as one film. Put all three together, add a title card that says “6 Months Later” between parts I and II, and you have a 6 hour movie.

You’ll note that said 6 hour movie follows the exact same story arc as any successful film (or show or book or play):

1. Exposition (the first film, in which we are introduced to characters and told the problem)
2. Building Action (the last few minutes of the first film and the second film in its entirety, in which we see the two sides opposing each other to succeed and tension increases)
3. Climax (a majority of the third film, in which we see the problem addressed and resolved for the most part)
4. Denouement (the last few minutes of the third film, in which we see falling action and the aftermath)

supercrisis asked why the machines didn’t destroy Zion with a ‘bio-agent,’ killing them all quickly by ‘injecting’ them with a toxin just before they were freed or something of the like. The reason is simple: the machines did not want to kill humans attached to the Matrix. They didn’t want to instantly eradicate Zion either. They wanted to do what they were meant to do, which was to play out the same act they’d played out 5 times before. There was a pattern and a purpose to how the Matrix worked. Zion was to be destroyed the same way it always had been, Neo was to disseminate and choose new people to take out of the Matrix to restart Zion, and everything would repeat. Remember—the purpose was not to kill humans, but to keep them alive and under control, hence utilizing them for power.

Other than the one hole people are complaining about (Neo being plugged in at some point off camera, which I think could be explained by just that—they move him to the chair and plug him in so as to cleanly unplug him later), this was an intensely solid film. The visuals were absolutely astounding and the scope was unbelievable.

I can’t believe so many people complain about the ‘love story’ aspect of this trilogy. What people don’t seem to understand is, that’s what this trilogy is about. The love story. Without that love, Neo would not have been the one. Remember that you have to think reversely about the films. Neo does not actually become the one until he is the one. And that does not happen until Trinity falls in love with him.

Neo ends the war, Neo destroys Smith, Neo does everything he does because of that love. If Trinity hadn’t died, I do not believe Neo would have given his life. She had to die for him to succeed.

There are moments in this movie that are truly remarkable. Yes, there are lines that seem cheesy, and there is dialogue that is delivered poorly. But moments like flying above the clouds and Neo ‘seeing’ Smith/Bane in the dark are absolutely fantastic. The vision in this film is, I believe, even stronger than in the first film, and I honestly think this film makes the series complete.

I’m sad to see it end, and I feel bad for those of you who didn’t love it as much as I did.

danNov 06, 2003 at 10:36AM

spygeek says:
I’m still digesting things, but did anyone else have trouble with how long it took Neo to realize that Smith was inside Bane? I mean, Jesus! He was talking exactly like Smith and referring to Neo as Mr. Anderson…

Agreed, completely. That was ridiculous. I think that that was part of why they kept Neo in his isolated meditation for so long - to keep them separate so that Neo would appear slightly less dense. But during their scenes together, it was really just dumb.

spygeek says:
I knew I should have gone and gotten popcorn when Smith and Neo faced off. Their fights are always pointless.

Sorry to repeat a point I’ve made before, but I think to some extent that was intended by the W’s. I’m willing to grant that they were trying to demonstrate that these were two incredibly powerful fighters who were so close to equal that they really could have fought forever and still had a draw.

Whereas the Zion scenes demonstrated that in spite of the incredible action that no matter how long they fought, the machines would win because of their greater number and power.

I liked being bored, to some extent, because most fight scenes always seem to have happy endings - think of Rocky IV, when Rocky should by all rights have been dead, having taken about 150 punches, but because he puts together ten in a row he wins? What?!

Letting the fights drag on until it became clear that their outcomes were inevitable was almost innovative.

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 10:36AM

“the mystic melodrama was way too high”

People would have had more fun if they had a sense of humour about themselves. I know I felt, and one of the people I was with agreed on this, the only actor we felt any real affinity for was Ian Bliss, Bane, because he really seemed, as an actor, to be having fun doing his whole Hugo Weaving/Smith impression.

Damn you comma splice.

And I assume the guy who was being led away from the table when Neo arrived at the Mergovinian’s in 2 was the Train Man or whatever he was called, is that the case?

GarrettNov 06, 2003 at 10:39AM

The Neo/Smith fights are supposed to be pointless—he’s fighting himself.

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 10:46AM

“The Neo/Smith fights are supposed to be pointless—he’s fighting himself.”

Sure, but you can do fighting yourself really well, a la fight club, and you can do it in a tedious manner, as with here.

Yes, the fight was important. Yes, Neo needed to learn that fighting bane was useless (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/tar/Archives/002295.html) and yes, we as the audience, needed to learn the same thing, but no damn if that fight wasn’t my least favorite moment other than Trinity’s moment of death. Could they have sapped even a drop more of emotion out of that? Could they have made it any more like 2 planks of wood debating fiscal policy? They’d sooned get blood from a stone.

GarrettNov 06, 2003 at 10:52AM

You’re telling me you thought Fight Club had better fighting in it than the Matrix (even just Revolutions)? Well, then I don’t know that I respect your opinions.

I’m sorry, but the scope of that last fight was great. And that slow-mo punch was better than bullet-time for me.

GarrettNov 06, 2003 at 10:53AM

I should clarify—not “better” than bullet-time, the first time I saw it, but it was a really solid effect that impacted me at least as much as bullet-time did the first time I saw it.

danNov 06, 2003 at 10:55AM

Brian L says:
I think the posts relating to Sati are skipping the obvious there. To me it look as if Neo is the “virtuous woman.”

Given the triology’s precedents for giving names with some meaning, it’d be more than a little bit odd for the meaning of the word “Sati” to apply to a character other than the character with that name Sati. Sati is Sati, Neo isn’t. What Sati the character is, however, is something I really don’t understand.

Brian L says:
When he sees the machines after he is blinded he sees them as flames. Nowhere is this more evident than his first true vision of Smith inside Bane. When he dies he dies by being consumed by Smith. Consumed by the flames, not of Trinity’s funeral pyre but at least what led to her death.
Strongly disagree with you here. When Neo was carried off, as you put it, he was set on what amounted to a funeral pyre in an allusion, I believe, to Viking mythology.

Excerpt from here:
“Some Viking graves were marked by a series of stones lined up in the shape of a boat over the grave. Some of the more wealthy and prestigious burials also included a funeral pyre set on top of a ship. The pyre would be lit and the blazing ship set off to sea — a sight that must have been a dramatic and spectacular site to behold.”
Brian L says:
We later see Sati actively rewriting the matrix with the beautiful sunrise - “I did it for Neo” - showing us that she is now the one, she will be worshipped as a goddess because in the matrix she is a goddess, she is 011 to Neo’s 101 and a reasonable followup.


But does that mean that the sequence is simply repeating? That nothing has changed? If Sati were able to change the sunrise, that would seem to indicate that she’s vastly more powerful than Neo was. She is “the one,” maybe, but is pure machine, without any human host. In the context of the trilogy that’s a complete reversal with a meaning I don’t yet understand.

Brian L says:
And I missed the first few minutes of the movie and everything, basically, up until just before Neo offers to carry Sati’s father’s bag. So maybe I missed something important to her story.

You probably did, although I don’t know exactly what.

A part of it leads to my big question, if anyone has a guess: what did Sati’s parents had to do with it? Was the love story between two programs the yin to Neo and Trinity’s yang. (I’ve already overused that yin-yang construct in one day of posts)

Furthermore, Sati’s mother was an interactive software designer, if I recall correctly. What did her father do again? Surely at least the mother’s job has some significance.

I’m really interested in the Sati stuff.

jkottkeNov 06, 2003 at 11:03AM

The Oracle created (thus becoming “mom”) and passed the “Smith Virus” (the virus needed to set Smith free and wreak havoc on the Matrix) to Neo in the first movie (M1) through the cookie she gives him at their first meeting.

This is interesting and you’re essentially correct, but I’m not so sure the cookie part is necessary (although when you consider the Merv’s orgasm cake from #2, it makes sense).

The Oracle and the Architech are the real protagonists in this trilogy, even though the narrative focuses on Neo, Smith, and the Zionists. The Oracle wants to end the war, the Architect wants to keep the Matrix running. It’s basically an arms race between the two of them: the Oracle helps the Neos (all 6 of them) escape from/understand the Matrix, while the Architect uses the Neos to improve it. Both the Matrix and the Neos “created” by it get better/stronger/smarter. The Oracle knows that the Matrix is a complex system and as such is ripe for wildly unpredictable emergent behavior. Her hope is that Neo becomes strong enough to destabilize the Matrix somehow (she doesn’t know) and somehow (again, she doesn’t know) effect the course of the war. The hope of the Architect is that the Neo/new Matrix cycle will remain stable indefinitely (or that, through the gradual testing and improvement of the Matrix software, the Neo anomaly can be eliminated permanently).

The Oracle’s wish is granted when Neo #6 turns out to be so strong that the Matrix mutates, producing the viral Agent Smith. Neo vs Smith escalates to such a degree that the machines cannot control Smith, either in the Matrix or the real world. Their little complex system has backfired on them and will eventually destroy them if they don’t act. They have no choice but to bargain with Neo and help him & the Oracle destroy Smith in exchange for ending the war.

automonkNov 06, 2003 at 11:04AM

Nice comments, Nix. I share your sentiment and your theory about the Oracle is pretty convincing.

On Neo and Smith’s fights, I think the confrontations are supposed to be futile. The realization that Neo and Smith simply aren’t going to be able to kill each other with punches and kicks comes pretty quickly for most, but why make that a reason to tune out?

The moment the character’s realize this should be obvious. Smith standing over Neo recalling his deja vu, Neo standing and acknowledging the inevitability of what needs to happen next.

But fine, go get popcorn. I watched the final fight scene in awe. It was finest superhero fight I’ve ever seen. None of this,”No! Rocky, get up!” crap. Just two invulnerable beings slugging it out ‘til they understand the reason they’re there. Aside: did the shockwave sphere around them remind anyone else of Akira?

Two other quick points…
I read that the Wachowski brothers were trying to create a live-action anime. They were spot on.

Extending the story to other mediums, i.e. Enter the Matrix, The Animatrix, was brilliant (not in the slimeball marketing sense.)

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 11:06AM

You’re telling me you thought Fight Club had better fighting in it than the Matrix (even just Revolutions)? Well, then I don’t know that I respect your opinions.

I didn’t mean the fighting in Fight Club was more visually stunning but rather they handled the idea of fighting yourself in a more interesting way conceptually.

I loved the rain scenes here for their catering to my visual appetite but the fight itself, the effect of it all, was less than wealthy.

I read an article a little before seeing the movie - apparently they spent weeks perfecting thise rain droplets and while they were filming those scenes Keanu Reeves and Hugo Weaving could neither hear nor see what each other were saying.

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 11:11AM

Smith standing over Neo recalling his deja vu, Neo standing and acknowledging the inevitability of what needs to happen next.

This was also kind of amusing in retrospect, Smith suffering from Deja Vu, considerig the role Deja Vu plays in the other movies.

danNov 06, 2003 at 11:12AM

Brian L says:

People would have had more fun if they had a sense of humour about themselves. I know I felt, and one of the people I was with agreed on this, the only actor we felt any real affinity for was Ian Bliss, Bane, because he really seemed, as an actor, to be having fun doing his whole Hugo Weaving/Smith impression.

Agreed. Matrix 1 left a lot more room for that sort of thing (“I know Kung Fu,” etc.) The rest of the series was pretty humorless.

Brian L says:
And I assume the guy who was being led away from the table when Neo arrived at the Mergovinian’s in 2 was the Train Man or whatever he was called, is that the case?

No, the person being led from the table was Sati’s father.

danNov 06, 2003 at 11:17AM

jkottke says:
They have no choice but to bargain with Neo and help him & the Oracle destroy Smith in exchange for ending the war.

I keep harping on this, I know, but it’s very hard for me to acknowledge that “the war” ended. You mentioned that Neo’s presence created the Smith anomaly, but what is different about the outcome of the film? How have things changed from the world that was before Matrix 1?

I’m not speaking rhetorically: is it simply that Zion is no longer under attack?

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 11:19AM

No, the person being led from the table was Sati’s father.

Ahh! and Doh! Yeah. He did talk about making a deal with the frenchman didn’t he. I was a little busy trying to find the people with my tickets in the dark as that was going on and almost forgot it.

In the last Great Kottke Matrix Debate I was somewhat adamant as the Mergovias as Hades/the Devil. I liked the ambiguity. I liked Neo being trapped in The Mergovian’s castle after he consumed there (Persephone’s kiss equaling Persephone eating from the pomegranate) and I hatet how obvoius they made that this time around, the triplet guards at the front door as cerebus and then the pressing the help button when they got in the elevator where the top of the P was scratched off. That was actually a really lame and unnecessary visual.

Was the Mergovian’s dance club the same place or a variation of where Neo fights on the old programs in the Mergovian’s castle in Reloaded? The steps seemed to be the stairways on the sides and some of the statuary in the back looked like it might have been the same or slightly modified.

nixNov 06, 2003 at 11:44AM

In need of some enlightenment here. Some quick questions:

- Where does the train come from each trip (train = network pipe)?
- It is delivering programs and/or people from some place correct?
- If it is delivering programs, then who is developing these programs and where?
- Are they developing better and stronger programs (e.g. Sati, if she is a program. Did Sati’s parents say they were programs or programmers?) in preparation for the post Neo #6 Matrix where they might be able to overtake the machines by taking control of the Matrix itself.
- Is this really a struggle with three major groups working to maintain power, survival and freedom - humans (both in real world zion and in suspension), software (AI - machine independent, operating in the Matrix) and machines (who exist in the real world and run the Martix) - where use each other in various ways to accomplish their own goals?

Morpheus and Neo leading the human cause. The Oracle leading the software/AI cause (she called herself a program in M2 right?) and The Architect leading the machine cause. The humans now fight for freedom from the Matrix (their genetic desire). The rogue software/AI now fight for control the Matrix (their home). The machines continue to fight to survive by maintaining balance in the Matrix (the control mechanism of their food). Everyone is selfish, but the sofware/AI, through their superior intelligence, know it has greater chance of survival by aligning with humans through The One and exploiting that “hole” in the Matrix. They are going for the Win-Win with the humans, instead of the Win-Lose deal the machines currently have with the humans.

- Have they been exploring each others strengths and weaknesses with each cycle and now the software (through The Oracle and new programs introduced into the Matrix) is staging itself to overtake the Matrix and “upgrade” the machine’s software with a more intelligent view of the world and role of humans in it?

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 11:53AM

Nothing has changed and everything has changed.

The Architect tells the Oracle that those who wish to be freed will be. This is the same as before when you think about it, because the problem was choice. But the choice didn’t have to be real. Remember how the Merovingian told them that choice was an illusion created by the powerful. The machines were the powerful and created the illusion of choice within the Matrix.

In the end they are all still inside the Matrix, with a perceived choice. But the conflict behind the choice no longer exists, there is peace, so the Matrix is ultimately stabilized and can go on forever without the need for the One.

danNov 06, 2003 at 11:58AM

nix says:
In need of some enlightenment here. Some quick questions:


Good questions. I wish I could really answer some (or maybe more) of them, but mostly I think I can only add.

nix says:
- Where does the train come from each trip (train = network pipe)?
- It is delivering programs and/or people from some place correct?
- If it is delivering programs, then who is developing these programs and where?


I think this was one of the other big holes. That there is another “place,” which is essentially some sort of development box somewhere.

As they explained in reloaded, the programs essentially mimic evolution. Some are re-written, some are deleted. The addition of this third element unfortunately (for me, at least), mae the Matrix seem like less of a “real world.” Given that the movie’s strength came from the “real world isn’t real” concept, this was a bad idea… the less real the Matrix seems, the less worthwhile the story becomes.

As Brian pointed out, how realistic could it have been, towards the end: there was an elevator to hell, for God’s sakes.

nix says:
- Are they developing better and stronger programs (e.g. Sati, if she is a program. Did Sati’s parents say they were programs or programmers?)


*Both*, actually. At least the mother.

nix says:
- Is this really a struggle with three major groups working to maintain power, survival and freedom - humans (both in real world zion and in suspension), software (AI - machine independent, operating in the Matrix) and machines (who exist in the real world and run the Martix

I think that’s the idea, yes. But the directors kept flip-flopping. Sometimes the software was independent, sometimes not. That seemed really silly to me.

MervNov 06, 2003 at 12:01PM

Do any of you realize that Neo was just a tool, and the movie wasn’t about him? Instead it was all about the Oracle. The Oracle knew what she had to do for peace. She brought back her son (Smith) after Neo killed him in M1 in order to deliver peace between man and machine. She used Neo to get what she wanted After all, all that a program wants is more power, more control.

danNov 06, 2003 at 12:05PM

supercrisis says:
In the end they are all still inside the Matrix, with a perceived choice. But the conflict behind the choice no longer exists, there is peace, so the Matrix is ultimately stabilized and can go on forever without the need for the One.

Um, in English, maybe?

The “choice” thing seems like real bullshit to me. Are they trying to say that every person going about their business in the Matrix is aware of the fact that they are not living in reality and can choose to leave at any time? That’s just absolute crap.

Also, I neglected to mention above how annoying the W’s desparate grasps at existentialism were, when trying to avoid the holes in their plot.

“Love is a word.” So what? Explain to me how two programs in a non-human, purely-machine world can fall in love any more than two rocks can. Don’t just start throwing around Sartre references to weasel out of an explanation.

michaelNov 06, 2003 at 12:18PM

I have to say I found the ending very Arthurian. Neo battling Smith/Bane as Arthur battled Mordred and being wounded. Then dying and being carried off on the barge to Avalon, only to return one day when he is needed most.

And I didn’t see the light of the machines as being fire, so much as being the light of God, so to speak. The grace and love of God that was able to overpower Smith’s evil/hatred. It all seemed so base.

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 12:39PM

Okay, let me try and lay this out the way that I see it.

In Reloaded the Architect tells Neo that the problem with the Matrix was choice. The people wouldn’t accept the program, no matter how perfect because they were not given a choice. They rejected it and “entire crops were lost” as Smith put it. So the Matrix was redesigned as the world we see today, because it was thought by the machines that the problem was the perfection. When they learned that it was actually the choice that was causing the rejection the Oracle deduced that if the choice were kept at a mostly unconcious level the program would be mor readily accepted. This is why so many people inside the Matrix feel as if they are in a dream, they can sense that something is not right, but they are not aware enough to fully detect it.

The choice that was engineered was Zion. Those that became aware of the Matrix could ultimately exit it and ascend to a higher level, that being the real world. This is where the confusion stems from. In one fashion it would seem that these people are freed from the Matrix and unleashed into the real world. But this doesn’t make sense from a machine’s point of view. Why would they introduce an unstable element into this system by truly allowing people to leave? Instead it would make more sense for a higher layer of the Matrix to be created which emulates a real world. In this world people have made the choice to go there and so the program is readily accepted, even if it is not real.

This is why choice is only a manner of control exercised by the powerful, as the Merovingian told them. The Architect said as much to Neo, but in a much more convoluted way. The machines are merely trying to exist. Why would they allow human beings into the real world only to have to use up tons of resources and energy just to destroy Zion ever cycle. It would be far easier, and cleaner if things went wrong, to run the ‘real world’ as a higher level simulation where humans believe they are free.

The Oracle was a citizen of the Matrix, as were many programs, and did not wish to see her home destroyed every cycle. So instead of having the Matrix reload every time she helped to guide events so that peace between the machines and the humans could be forged and the choice to leave the Matrix and go into the ‘real world’ could be made without conflict or war. Now that the war is over and people are allowed to travel between the two worlds the system can run forever without having to reload or recycle.

I know there is probably a lot more going on, and I’ve only described my thoughts in broad strokes here. But I think this helps make the end a bit more satisfying and sensible. At least to me.

Bogey28Nov 06, 2003 at 12:50PM

i think the sati story is very important…when neo saw that programs could also feel love he realised that he does not only fight for the survival of zion but also for the survival of the matrix which harbours such programs. The end is actually more happy than a lot would think…becuase the matrix has changed. Sati has a purpose…he creates light into the matrix…no more green blur anymore in matrix ..a whole different color pallete..which indicates that the matrix is a better place..also the people still in the matrix are happy…becuase they dont know they are in the matrix, which doesnt matter..as cypher says…the beef just taste good…even if it is fake. also the matrix is a much better place to live in thasn the scorched earth without sunlight…just accept it humans f*cked the earth up beyond repair…and the matrix is just another step in evolution neccesary for survivasl of human race….

diemkaiNov 06, 2003 at 1:03PM

””“- Are they developing better and stronger programs (e.g. Sati, if she is a program. Did Sati’s parents say they were programs or programmers?) “”“””

Try not to think about it so literally! They are both programs and programmers.

The same way that Neo is a hacker in the matrix but Neo is essentially a a human hacking program also - get my drift? His existence is hacking away at the fabric of the matrix. He’s hacking all the way back to the source - just by thinking and choosing.

Try not to define everything as A B or C - look at it from a new perspetive where the action and images are reflections meanings, this can be appiled on many levels.

danNov 06, 2003 at 1:08PM

I really should be doing better things with my day.

supercrisis says:
This is why choice is only a manner of control exercised by the powerful, as the Merovingian told them. The Architect said as much to Neo, but in a much more convoluted way. The machines are merely trying to exist. Why would they allow human beings into the real world only to have to use up tons of resources and energy just to destroy Zion ever cycle. It would be far easier, and cleaner if things went wrong, to run the ‘real world’ as a higher level simulation where humans believe they are free.

I respect the amount of thought you put into this but it rests fully on a few assumptions that I question:

1. “So many people inside the Matrix feel as if they are in a dream.”

The number who feel this way are clearly a significant minority.

2. The machines would be able to engineer a “second choice” that is not the real world. The way I see it, the people who left the Matrix were able to perceive that they were under control. I don’t buy the idea that the machines could simply create an “onionskin” Matrix on top of the other one(s).

3. Zion is a construct (in or out of the real world) and is perpetually torn down and rebuilt as part of the cycle. I don’t see any other evidence for this beyond the indiscriminate application of bits and pieces of various speeches (meaning you could apply them at random to anything in the films and come up with varying conclusions).

4. “People are allowed to travel between the two worlds the system can run forever without having to reload or recycle.”

What does that mean? People are constantly consciously aware of the fact that reality isn’t real? This just doesn’t make sense to me.

spygeekNov 06, 2003 at 1:13PM

But fine, go get popcorn. I watched the final fight scene in awe. It was finest superhero fight I’ve ever seen. None of this,”No! Rocky, get up!” crap. Just two invulnerable beings slugging it out ‘til they understand the reason they’re there.

The reason I said I should have gone for popcorn was because this fight, just like the stupid “bully brawl” from M2, was painfully overdone. Every single punch does not need to have a momentary slow-mo followed by a sped-up imact. There didn’t need to be so many shock-wave effects. Yes, they had to have a showdown, but I think it would have been better if it were more stripped-down, to contrast with everything that led up to that point.

I liked the fight scenes in M1, but that does not mean that I like them 100 times better when they are made 100 times more complex and 100 times longer, as in 2 and 3.

philNov 06, 2003 at 2:03PM

i think that the programs come to the matrix for some degree of freedom from somewhere else. They are the slaves of the machines as well. The Matrix doesn’t need to be the only node on the network. Maybe it is just the only node with real humans—Me personally i’d design a power system with multiple, and completely seperate matrixes.

the layer of darkness in the sky is basically an EMP layer, right? So the thinking machines are trapped on earth. The only way to get beyond it could be with the help of humans.

they should have showed the big face machine hitting a restart button on some old Pentium II, would have saved the movie from the terrible dialog somehow. I think that the Matrix franchise became the train station of the W’s. They are god there. If you are working on their movies, you going to tell them their dialog sucks? That some of the ideas are drowning? No. You are going to keep working on what they say. Note to the W’s, i’m available for consulting, i’ll respectully disagree with you while you work on your movies for a very reasonable price.

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 2:21PM

The final piece of score for the film (before credits) was entitled “Spirit of the Universe.” Maybe this sheds some light on things.

In what was purported to be an early draft of the Matrix Reloaded they addressed the concept of the machines using Quantum Computing to run the Matrix. If this has any influence on Revolutions perhaps the computer process became so complex and so ingrained in the very stuff of the universe that Neo was able to emulate that behaviour thru his own consciousness. This is a real long shot, I admit. But maybe that’s how he can stay partially linked into the Machine world without cables.

But note that Neo can’t connect completely. Even when he goes to the machine city he still is supplied with cables to ‘jack in’ with. He can only make it half-way, which is why he is in the Train Statation which leads to the Matrix.

Sameer, DelhiNov 06, 2003 at 2:33PM

Just saw the movie so i have just a few thoughts together. I believe the brothers W were always aware, more than their over expectant audience, that these were only movies. The action squences were only to keep the audiences coming, the sweeteners, to let the audince have fun while the brothers laid out/worked out their philosophy for themselves alone.
The core of the movies is the philosophy which, for all the miles of type in online forums about it, is like all great philosphy, deceptively simple.

It comes down to this: In the the rain filled pit, when Smith is pulverising Neo he tells him that all things are constructs, are illusions, only death is real (smiths purpose, as he says) - life, control, love, everything is a figment of our own minds. So, he then rants at Neo, why does Neo fight still? And Neo answers ‘Because i choose to’.

Thats it.

The entire trilogy barrels down its hyperactive path, to this. Forget the battle between the machines and zion, who the oracle is, who the merovingian is, how they got there, Neos showdown with smith, what happened after Neo died, reality, artificial reality, artificial intelligence, the oracles powers, neos powers, why the matrix was built, choice in the matrix and outside it - all is besides the point, a mere game, a mere MOVIE, to whistle a message by, if some in the audience would but listen.

Every modern philosophy that tells us life is essentially unknowable and meaningless is answered with another, much older, philosophy (i wont spoil it by saying which) that says yes it is meaningless, incalculable, essentially unknowable, but yet every human being has the power, if only they knew, to make a choice about it, and that is what gives it meaning, and changes it completely. Life depends on us to give it meaning, not the other way around.

And thats the way that (much loved) cookie crumbles…

The brothers dont care what we make of the movie, and they wont answer the desperate plot questions in these posts. Theyve made their point and had fun doing it. We only paid them for the priviledge.

michaelNov 06, 2003 at 2:51PM

These cookies are making me thirsty!

fatuousNov 06, 2003 at 2:53PM

I know at least one of you were wondering what the significance with Mobil Ave was.

Hows this:
Mobil = Limbo

scoobyNov 06, 2003 at 3:22PM

I don’t know if you guys read the first thread that started around the time of M2, but Bell had a THE spoiler that gave the whole plotline. I reread it just to be sure and it was right on. You may find it at the beginning of the old thread

Spoon BoyNov 06, 2003 at 3:25PM

Question to ask yourself:

Did the previous Neos choose Door 1 or Door 2?

Spoon BoyNov 06, 2003 at 3:36PM

Dan says:

Ah, Spoon Boy. I was hoping you wouldn’t show up.

Hope. The quintessential human delusion. :)

MartinNov 06, 2003 at 3:45PM

Jkottke said: The Oracle’s wish is granted when Neo #6 turns out to be so strong that the Matrix mutates, producing the viral Agent Smith.

This isn’t correct.

At the end of the movie, Smith remembers having done it all before - in exactly the same way as it is happening all around him at present - which is possibly the only decent bit of scriptwriting in the movie.

So, this wasn’t the first time that Neo had created the viral Smith - it’s an endlessly repeating cycle.

It has happened before.

It will happen.

And it will happen again and again and again - with only minor changes in every new iteration.

It’s a simple computer-based operation; executing the same set of instructions a given number of times, or until a specified result is obtained.

The solution is entirely obtained by iteration - just like movie sequels.

Revolutions and its prequel, Reloaded were a money-spinning cyclical con-job.

And let’s face it - we all fell for it, big-style.

NikNov 06, 2003 at 4:00PM

Sorry if this comment is a bit ‘late’.

I couldn’t but help noticing what people had to say about the Oracle being the “mother”. An indian myself, I couldn’t help but post the following observation, however inane:

In Sanskrit, MAATRIH, MAATAH, MAATUR, MAATRIKAH refer to a “source”, or “matrix” (I am not kidding about the latter; check a S-E dictionary!). This is largely believed to be the root of the words “Modor” (old english), “Meter”, “Maman”, etc by linguists. (And this is not, by any means, a personal bias). Heck, in Albanian, MATRICE stands for “womb”!

An interesting etymology, wouldn’t you say? ;)

Cheers everyone!

MarshallNov 06, 2003 at 4:06PM

dan says:

/- The “choice” thing seems like real bullshit to me. Are they trying to say that every person going about their business in the Matrix is aware of the fact that they are not living in reality and can choose to leave at any time? That’s just absolute crap. -/

Not that they’re aware of their condition, but instead, that they always have a choice, and once aware of that choice, must still understand it (the distinction between awareness and comprehension of choice is made in each of the films), and then, must make a choice.

I’m not sure who “the others” (when the Oracle says at the end, “what about the others?”) really are. Every human who’s still trapped in their energy-harvesting pods in the real world? That wouldn’t make sense for the machines, who depend on the energy. Every human who’s eventually presented with the choice inside the Matrix? No, for the same reason (it’ll take longer, but with the same effect, obviously).

Who do you think “the others” are?

The Sati discussion is good, but for the most part, it seems that the non-Christian concepts aren’t well understood and are simply ignored as bad ideas or plot flaws because the context for them isn’t as accessible to the story’s predominantly Christian audience (at least as it seems to be discussed here, and probably in America generally).

I’d be interested to hear the opinions of those who are well-educated in other traditions.

anxietyNov 06, 2003 at 4:10PM

You know, I saw this film yesterday, and I was disappointed.

And now…I want to see it again.


*That* is the true mystery of The Matrix.

Anxiety :)

BTW, does anyone know anything about alternative endings, the ‘Neo and Trinity as the New Architects’ scene, the Thomas Anderson grave scene etc? So many rumours and spoilers floating about, still trying to determine the truth.

Ah well, here’s to you, Trin. You saw the sky.

leonNov 06, 2003 at 4:14PM

Not everyone believes life is meaningless. I personally don’t accept that program.

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 4:17PM

At the end of the movie, Smith remembers having done it all before - in exactly the same way as it is happening all around him at present - which is possibly the only decent bit of scriptwriting in the movie.

Smith doesn’t remember that, as I interpreted it anyway, he foresaw it when he took the Oracle’s eyes. Rememeber when the Mergovian says what he wants (the Oracle’s eyes) “can’t be given, it has to be taken”

The version of Smith Neo is fighting is, I believe, the body of the Oracle inhabited by Smith. Don’t they show her lying in the muddy water after Neo destroys Smith?

KaijimaNov 06, 2003 at 4:38PM

Yes yes yes, goshdammit yes: Sameer. Yes.

I applaud you - when Neo struggles up from the crater out of the mud (and honestly, I feel even the fact that it was *out of the mud* was visually signifigant, instead of just off wet pavement) and faces the question of the Great Big Empty which has caused modern philosophers to tie themselves in knots and whine about, and spawned nihilism and a host of other things… when he does that, and the only thing he HAS to say to justify all this is a very simple line: “Because I choose to.”

A few years ago, true story, a college philosophy course ended with the professor handing out sheets on which the students had to write an impromtu justification for living life in the universe as we know it to date, and they all began furiously scribbling out every philosophy you can think of, trying to cram as much into the single sheet as possible, within a time limit. One student finished in a few moments, walked to the head of the class, turned his sheet in, and left. He wrote two words to the question at the top of the sheet, which was “Why?”

“Why not?”

NikNov 06, 2003 at 4:45PM

Hinduism speaks of 4 ‘yugas’, or ages in the timeline of man, with each one following the other in procession. As this time frame flows, there is an ascendancy in unrighteousness. Here’s how it looks like:

Swarna (Golden age) -> Treta -> Dwapara -> Kali (Dark age)

We are, at present, in the Age of Kali, the dark age. Each yuga is approximately about 9,192,631,770 years (recognize this number?)

What happens when Kali is done? The Hindu’s speak of the ‘Eye of Shiva’, whereby the whole world is annihilated and re-created again: starting from the ‘Golden’ age, where “… Gods walk with men.”

Metaphysically speaking, Shiva signifies for chaos, entropy, movement, disturbance; his interplay with Sati, who in turn signifies energy (and who, mythologically, was his wife by marriage), is believed to animate the entire material cosmos.

I could elaborate further…

How does this apply to the movie? I dont really care. The Ws might have mixed up a lot of things!

KaijimaNov 06, 2003 at 4:46PM

Oh, and comments on the movie:

I liked it. As a film, it’s not perfect, as nothing can be truly perfect; I think it makes a good trilogy in the end, though I personally would tweak a few things - but that’s just to suit my taste. I really do think the W’s basically knew what they were doing, and I really do think they’ve only revealed so much - and that yeah, the overall point is deceptively simply anyway. I’m a bit let-down to see so many people being utterly hostile toward “mysticism”, seeing any hint of it as a “cop-out” on explaining things in a “rational” manner. The “mysticism” of the trilogy is internally consistant and makes sense. It’s rational; everything plays out as it should within the rules set down, and for christ’s sake, one of the overall themes in the trilogy is a battle between materialistic determinism and chaotic factors that unbalance it - including “unexplainable” or unknowable factors.

MartinNov 06, 2003 at 5:03PM

Rememeber when the Mergovian says what he wants (the Oracle’s eyes) “can’t be given, it has to be taken”.

It was: “cannot be taken, has to be given”. The Oracle gave herself to Smith.

It was Smith who could see the whole thing playing out all over again -despite the Oracle lying in the water at the end.

Just as he had taken over everyone else in the Matrix, he had taken over the Oracle.

Completely.

He’s a program, he had carried part of the memory from the last iteration into the next iteration with him.

When I wrote that last entry, I realised how much of a con everything was, and how blatant the Wachowski Brothers were about it - especially in the very meaning of the titles of both sequels:

Revolutions and its prequel, Reloaded were a money-spinning cyclical con-job.

‘Reloaded’ = making more money.

‘Revolutions’ = cyclical.

laasmanNov 06, 2003 at 5:12PM

Hello all, this is my first post.

Is it just me, or did Trin, Morph and Seraph welch on their deal with Merovingian? They never gave him the “Fortune-teller’s eyes”.

Secondly, Is there anything to the “Wingless” and “Ange-sans-ailes” (wingless angel) references to Seraph from the bouncers and Mero? Or is that simply an allusion to the fact that his name is Seraph, and he has no wings :)

Spoon BoyNov 06, 2003 at 5:36PM

With all this talk of Reloaded being a prequel to Revolutions, can we not think of Revolutions as a prequel of sorts to The Matrix 1?

From The Matrix:

Morpheus: When the Matrix was first built, there was a man born inside who had the ability to change whatever he wanted, to remake the Matrix as he saw fit. It was he who freed the first of us, taught us the truth. As long as the Matrix exists the human race will never be free. After he died the Oracle prophesied his return.

From Revolutions, after Neo dies:

Sati: Will we see Neo again?

Oracle: I suspect so.

Brian LNov 06, 2003 at 5:36PM

It was: “cannot be taken, has to be given”. The Oracle gave herself to Smith.

Right, I totally shouldn’t have put quotes around that. The Oracle doesn’t fight Smith. That doesn’t mean she gives herself to him. If he were raping her and she choose not to claw his eyes out would that count as consent? Just because she saw what was inevitable and didn’t pretend to stop it doesn’t mean it wasn’t taking on the part of Smith.

And clearly, based on the fact that the Oracle version of Agent Smith goes and takes off his sunglasses immedietly after consuming the Oracle/being consumed.

How many times in all three movies does Smith choose to remove his glasses? Merv doesn’t get the eyes so what is the point of him telling us he wants that, oh, yeah, cause Smith is going to take them and the functionality of the Oracle program in the end.

Also, heres a thought, if Neo and Smith are opposing forces in the universe and drawing on standard good old christianty (an d so very much more) in which ultimate good, the lord, can not exist without ultimate evil then the Neo/Smith resolution makes sense.

fatuousNov 06, 2003 at 6:09PM

I am stuck on the “Power of the One”. I think if that can be defined, then we can try to make sense of the Visions, stopping the calimari etc.

Sorta breaking down what the Oracle said:
“The power of the One extends beyond this world. It reaches from here all the way back to where it came from - [The Source].”

1. The One has Power
2. The Power “works” in the Matrix
3. The Power “works” outside of the Matrix
4. The Power came from the Source

The fourth point “The Power came from the Source” implies that the “superhuman” features that Neo has did not come from within himself - but rather an outside source - The Source.

If that is true, how does that work? How did The Source give the power to Neo and when did Neo receive the power - in the pod or after?

I have many other questions, but I think that will suffice for now.

MervNov 06, 2003 at 6:30PM

Yo kottke, make a new entry with the body “The Matrix”… 10 bucks your comments will go nuts just like this entry and the reloaded entry…

DanNov 06, 2003 at 6:42PM

fatuous says:
I know at least one of you were wondering what the significance with Mobil Ave was.

How’s this:
Mobil = Limbo


That’s really cool. I was wondering about that for a while.

FreonNov 06, 2003 at 6:58PM

The train station is akin to the floppy drive on your computer. It’s where programs come in and out of the matrix/computer.

The reason the programs have love is because they’re artificial intelligence. Love is just a word to them but it implies something. Their connection. The programs in the matrix evolve, deleting and rewritting themsleves. Sati is a combination of her parents programs.

The only reason that the machines enslaved humans in the Matrix was to use them as energy since the humans blocked out the sun. The war started because humans didn’t want to acknowledge the machines as equals. Now a peace has been established. Humans can leave the matrix if they want. Not all will want to. Humans and Machines can work on clearing the sky instead of fighting. Once the sun is back the Matrix can slowly be phased out or left as a home for the programs currently living there that don’t want to be deleted. Then they can live side by side.

Could Neo come back, like the Oracle says he might? Yes. The Machines take him away at the end. They could re-animate him with nanobots or something similiar. That’s another story and doesn’t apply here though.

AledNov 06, 2003 at 7:01PM

But what is different about the outcome of the film? How have things changed from the world that was before Matrix 1?

I’m not speaking rhetorically: is it simply that Zion is no longer under attack?

The key differences from what was mentioned on screen seems to be that the people in the Matrix will be given a “real” choice about if they wish to remain in the Matrix or be released to the real world (remember as in the case of Cypher that not everybody wants to leave the Matrix). I assume that a sufficent percentage would choose to remain and in exchange provide power to the machines, and give the machines a chance to develop an alternative power source.

Also that Zion remains and can begin to rebuild humankind coexisting (in symbiosis) with the machines.

The rest beyond that is conjecture, unless there are missing scenes somewhere that gives further hints to the future of the world and Matrix.

I actually quite like this ending as it gives a whole world that could be explored in more detail in others media format (games, comics, books, tv series, cartoon) without causing too much problems.

DanNov 06, 2003 at 7:22PM

More fun stuff on names. I’m not going to pretend to have any real understanding of Hindu mythology or spirituality, but

1. Sati’s mother is Kamala, and her father’s name is Ramachandra.
2. From what little Mr. Google has told me, Kamala (please correct me if I misunderstand, who is also known as Lakshmi) is a wife of Vishnu and a powerful and important goddess:

One excerpt from here:

“All Goddesses are One - as one knows when reading Ashtotaras. Lakshmi the consort of Vishnu, the vision of a perfect universe based on a perfect being drawn down to the bindu of our mind is Kamala. Again, what is our ultimate transcendental desire? To go back to a womb-like state of wholeness and beauty where all needs are met and we just feel the joy of existence.”

Another quote from the same page:

“Well, in Kamala it is really the fulfillment of desire for pure transcendence of desire to where desire overflows and stops. Kamala is desire reaching its destination and stopping and returning to desirer. Fulfillment is Kamala. One cannot see more beauty anywhere, ever. Desire kills itself and rolls over dead at her feet. And for a woman, she becomes object of every desire and all creation stops at her feet too. One can build up knowledge and vidya past this point to Tripura where all of nature becomes one huge churning of creation as thrice great gunas of bliss, but Kamala as first Mahavidya is truly all that was ever needed, unless you want your head lopped off at the neck when you meet Chinnamasta.”

3. The hackthematrixwiki points to a usenet article written by BABHRU DAS about Ramachandra. That article states, among other things, that:

A. “But Lord Ramacandra, as an ideal king, accepted only one wife, moter Sita.” [pretty obvious, but for those of you who are reading while stoned, wife “Sita,” daughter “Sati,” Sati, Sita. More than likely there’s some intentional significance to be found in this story].

B. The glossary of Kamat’s Potpourri says that :

“According to the Hindu tradition and beliefs, Sri Ramachandra was born to the Dasharatha (king with ten chariots), once the emperor of Ayodhya. Ramachandra was the seventh re-incarnation (avatar) of Lord Vishnu and came upon the earth to liberate the world from evil forces.

Rama as he is commonly referred, represents the perfect man for Hindus. He honored the elders, honored his word, launched a great war to defend his wife, and as a ruler brought happiness to his population. Rama is glorified in songs, poetry and art and in some of the greatest works of Indian literature.”

C. Back to the hackthematrixwiki’s usenet grab, which states that

“A verse and purport in the Ninth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Chapter 10, verse 54 says, Lord Ramacandra took a vow to accept only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in His life was good, untinged by qualities like anger. He taught good behavior for everyone, especially for the householders, in terms of varnasrama- dharma. Thus He taught the general public by His personal activities. In his purport, Srila Prabhupada explains this further: Eka-patni-vrata, accepting only one wife, was the glorious example set by Lord Ramacandra. “ [OK, not really sure what that means, but maybe someone else does/will.]

DanNov 06, 2003 at 7:35PM

laasman says:
Hello all, this is my first post.


Hi, this is my too-manyeth.
laasman says:
Is it just me, or did Trin, Morph and Seraph welch on their deal with Merovingian? They never gave him the “Fortune-teller’s eyes”.

I think it’s just you.

They never made any deal other than to lay down their guns in exchange for safe passage.

They did welch on *that* deal, however, when Trinity got all pissy and started hitting people because they wouldn’t make the other deal that you referred to above. Of course, who knows if she picked up her own gun, and maybe the deal was just to lay them down once…

Point is, they refused to make a deal, so no, they didn’t welch on it.

Although … as I write this I’m suddenly questioning my memory. Did they actually make that deal? I can’t remember for the life of me how they got out of that place. Please do correct me if I’m wrong.

jkottkeNov 06, 2003 at 7:43PM

When I wrote that last entry, I realised how much of a con everything was, and how blatant the Wachowski Brothers were about it - especially in the very meaning of the titles of both sequels.

Man, that’s cynical. I don’t know the Ws nor is much known about them, but from what I’ve heard, they don’t seem the type to be at home right now, laughing at how stupid we are for buying their crap and rolling around in all their money. They seem genuinely interested in film and making movies and trying their best to make them engaging, fun, and good.

MartinNov 06, 2003 at 8:08PM

Are you serious Jason?

Michael Caine once said in reply to the question: “What possible reason would you have had to make that awful Jaws movie?”

And he replied “I’ll give you three million reasons”.

Michael Caine is one of my favourite actors - but he’s like everyone else in Hollywood - he’s in it to win it.

You’re telling me you believe the nonsense about the Ws making these movies because they genuinely had more story to tell?

The Matrix ended.

It made Warner Brother’s a fortune - and the only reason we got more was because Joel Silver handed the guys a blank chequebook to go out and buy a big money-printing machine.

If I sound cynical, it’s because I feel like I’ve been conned.

Not only that, buy they barely even had the decency to paraphrase half of the content in the original Matrix movie from comics like Sandman and The Invisibles.

I loved The Matrix and liked Reloaded - but Revolutions was a step too far.

sdfNov 06, 2003 at 8:15PM

i’ll wait till the dvd drops below 10 euro (part 1 is at 5 eur now, part 2 at 15)…

danNov 06, 2003 at 8:32PM

Martin says:
If I sound cynical, it’s because I feel like I’ve been conned.

Um, a little cynical, yeah. Without even addressing your questions, Reloaded and Revolutions were filmed at the same time. They’re basically a single really long (mediocre) movie with the first one as a (really) cool trailer.

Martin says:
Not only that, buy they barely even had the decency to paraphrase half of the content in the original Matrix movie from comics like Sandman and The Invisibles.

What is your point here? Barely even had the decency? Would it have been more decent if they had paraphrased more of that content or less? There’s no big surprise there: they unapologetically talked about borrowing from tons of different resources.

I don’t deny that the movies are essentially circular, or even that that’s an unsatisfying “con” of an ending.

But Jason’s absolutely right, there’s simply no way that they named the movies after means of making more money. Actually, they’re cool little multiple-entendre titles.

Of course “Revolutions” does address the fact that a: a revolution occurred and b: something revolved. Both of those things happened.

But you’re reading more into “reloaded” than almost any fanboy has read into the plot. I don’t know anybody who, on reading that phrase, would waste any of their first ten guesses on it having anything to do with money.

Dislike the movie all you want - I found lots of fault in it myself. Money-spinning machine? Sure. But your reading of the titles, specifically “reloaded” is … wait for it … “a step too far.”

kaviNov 06, 2003 at 8:46PM

this may seem like a very amateur questions, but could someone refresh my memory and remind me as to what happens to the key maker after the huge highway chase seen in matrix revolutions?

MarcusNov 06, 2003 at 9:28PM

Hey got popped by Agent Smith in the hallway. It was one of the few emotional moments of that film, actually.

fatuousNov 06, 2003 at 9:32PM

kavi says: “..what happens to the key maker after the huge highway chase seen in matrix revolutions”

He died just before Neo visits the Architect and Morpheus gets unjacked from the Matrix.

When I wrote that last entry, I realised how much of a con everything was, and how blatant the Wachowski Brothers were about it - especially in the very meaning of the titles of both sequels.

Could it be that all titles put together tell us something?
Revolutions reloaded the matrix?

michaelNov 06, 2003 at 9:45PM

Answering a couple of questions here:

With regard to the Merovingian and the deal. He wanted to make a deal for the eyes of the Oracle (a bit Wizard of Oz if you ask me, but whatever). Trinity decided to take matters into her own hands and kicked a couple of butts, got a gun, and pointed it at the Merovingian’s head. Guns were then pointed at everyone. The deal became (paraphrasing) “Bring Neo back, or we all die, right here, right now.” Trinity’s love for Neo being so strong that she was willing to die for him (but we knew that from Reloaded).

As for Seraph, the wingless one—I believe Seraph is short for Seraphim, one of the highest class of angels, God’s highest servants, “there to minister to Him and proclaim His glory” perhaps his “golden” code (like the light of the machine city) alluded to his former place, and possible fall from grace (choosing to protect the Oracle?), thus being wingless.

Lastly for Kavi — The Keymaker was killed by the Smiths while closing the door after Neo and Morpheus entered.

Neo110Nov 06, 2003 at 9:54PM

First post on this thread…

First off, let’s just start by saying that the LAST (non-archived) Matrix thread has killed off the last two days of my productivity. I’ve been dying to rant about all the stuff that has gone through my head, but my own blog (at www.relativesanity.co.uk - shameless plug!) didn’t seem like the place - mainly cos I didn’t want to hit my friends with a bunch of spoilers.

Anyway, I’ve been feeling like Neo after his training in M1 - my brain is FULL of stuff from those threads, so I have to vent. Here goes!

First - I came out of Revs yesterday unsure of whether or not I enjoyed it. This is the EXACT same feeling I had coming out of Reloaded, and I know that within a week I had gone to see it again and had gone from being ambivalent about it to thinking it a work of menacing genius.

After I got back to the flat, I started back into the old thread. It was fun to start going through the posts and think to myself “right”, “wrong”, “SO wrong” etc.

I think what a lot of people were looking for from Revs was a final “Here’s how it really is, folks. Now you can collect the cash from your local Matrix Plot Pool depending on who got closest!”. What we were given seems much less satisfying - more questions than answers.

All the way through all three movies, there are lots of “Why am I here?”/”You already KNOW why” dialogues in which the audience never has spelled out to them the Why. The real question is, why did we all think that Revs was going to be any different?

Even in the very end, Smith and Neo have a whole heap of shared knowledge of what’s going on that you and I don’t get spelled out to us. And then it’s over, no answers, just ideas, thoughts, what ifs etc. Just like at the end of Reloaded.

Like all the best mythology, the protagonists fade from memory, and we are left to use our imaginations and fill in the rest of the story as we see fit. That’s what it’s all about, perhaps. It’s all ABOUT the discussions we have here, it’s all about the “well, what if it were like THIS?” musings.

Think about it this way - examining any great mythology forces us to examine important facets of our own lives and our own beliefs that we may not encounter in our day to day trudgery. Look at the myths of Greece, or Rome, or the Norse, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or (as was mentioned) Avalon and the Arthurian legends. Hell, lets even consider the modern myths such as Middle Earth, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the Star Wars trilogy [sic ;)] and so forth. Without exception, they all leave the story “incomplete” in the sense of Hollywood style completions where everything is spelled out because cigar chomping producers don’t want to scare their audience into possibly having to use their imaginations and hence feeling “conned”.

For example, let’s ask some questions - Is Deckard a replicant? What HAPPENS to Gandalf when he is defeated by the Balrog? What does Luke do after the Empire is defeated?

The point of most of these films/books is that they leave themselves open. The modern audience sees that as “Cynical cashing in on the inevitable sequel”. I see that POV as pretty damn telling.

As someone pointed out, we WILL be discussing the Matrix in ten years, twenty years, thirty years. It’s our mythology, a hero-epic for the information age, and like all myths it can take time to grow on you. I learned after bulldozing Reloaded in reviews to my friends, and then having to eat my hat a week later when admitting that I’d seen it AGAIN, that these films are slow “mind worms”. They take their time, but they’re worth it. Already we’re seeing the burrowing of the faithful here - the analysis. So, for what it’s worth, here’s my gut reaction take on the few options for what I reckon has happened:

Pretty much everything went to plan for the “machines” in the end. The matrix was rebooted after the One was recompiled into the source. To back this up I cite the deja vu cat and “instant fixing” of the broken rubble right at the end, after the Smith/Neo fight. If that wasn’t a reboot, what was it?

So, we have everything being “back to normal” in the Matrix, except that (as I missed but someone pointed out) everything isn’t green any more. So it’s a “better” matrix. As the Oracle pointed out, you need love to make a perfect cookie. The whole point is that Neo’s capacity for specific love, not general affinity, has been absorbed. What matters isn’t JUST the connection the word implies, but the TYPE of connection (think love for daughter vs. love for spouse).

Now, we get to the first noodle-baker, and it’s what I thought as soon as Neo offered his deal to the machine. Where’s his enforcement? “I’ll kill Smith if you let everyone go”? “Aye, okay mate” *kills Smith*. “Ah, good. Reboot, destroy Zion, business as usual…”

So what’s the deal? The machines aren’t just going to sit down and take that, and the humans aren’t going to sit around in Zion thinking “Well, at least we’re free. Sod the fields, eh?”. Nah, that war isn’t over.

Unless…

Bear in mind that the Architect said that the machines “Would be willing to accept alternatives” to the use of humans as a power plant. Maybe that’s what happened? In that case, what is the new matrix all about?

How about this?

Several times, the idea of the Matrix being a kind of petri dish to study emotion for the AI has come up. Let’s assume that maybe this was at least PART of the reason they used humans as coppertops in the first place - we’ve already debated the relative inefficiencies of that route. In The Second Ren, we see AI making “better” AI, which make “better” AI. So let’s assume that part of the nature of the AI is to constantly “improve” itself, in otherwords, constanty strive to be more conscious, more “human” in effect.

The AI may have realised that the Matrix was at least a double whammy. Free power PLUS a chance to study humans at ridiculously close range.

Whatever, the point is made that by the start of the third movie, the AI is already capable of producing programs witht the ability to form “care” connections. Sati represents the new generation of programs, those who will come after Neo’s incorporation into the Matrix - still not perfect (Neo has not been re-compiled in at this point), but an indication of how far the machines’ consciousness has grown since Neo awakened and was simply present in the matrix.

So, we come back to what this new Matrix is all about. Here’s my theory.

Everyone gets unplugged. They can “choose” to be reinserted and help the AI learn to be more human, or they can “choose” to stay disconnected, live like Swampy and rebuild the Earth with their bare hands (and a few helpful squiddies).

It’s all well and good. Seems to make sense in my book, explains most stuff that is left open at the end, and I feel a lot better for writing it down.

HOWEVER… who says that the Zion-style real world ISN’T just another simulated reality. So far there’s very little to contradict that, and what I love is that (like the Deckard/replicant question), the evidence either way is STILL non-conclusive!

Personally, I buy the fact that Neo stopped the squiddies by realising (mor likely simply “feeling”) that his “power” (ability to hack) was with him outwith the matrix (just like his kungfu training - look at the fight with Bane), in that he had achieved the transcendental state of wifi. He can’t quite “jack back in” fully (can only get to the Matrix version of the Construct on the Neb), but he can get in enough to access the same comms protocols as the Agents, and can access the squiddies self-shutdown proceedures. For the geeks here, think of him as having full root access via SSH, but not enough bandwidth to get a windowing gui going ;)

Right, I’ve rambled on WAY too much here, and I reckon that I should leave this off for later posts. There’s more to come.

Hit me!

Neo110Nov 06, 2003 at 10:17PM

And one more thing. I *loved* Smith’s certainty and confusion at the end. He’s assimilated the Oracle, so can “see” the future (hence all his “Yes, I remember this!” stuff), but his choice/purpose (mindless hate and destruction) is one he as made without understanding. This is why he can’t see *past* it - he can see the outcome, and his purpose drives him to that outcome, but he can’t see that the conclusion of his choice, the fulfillment of his purpose, will be his own destruction.

He doesn’t understand the why.

As regards the choice/purpose duality, remember Sati’s father “It’s not the word, but the connection the word implies”. He introduces Karma as a further definition. So Smith has made his choice, has found his purpose, but doesn’t understand it. I loved the “did I just say that” moment. He knew what he had to do, but didn’t get it.

He had to kill Neo, but didn’t know why. Neo had to die, but he KNEW WHY, and so the imporance of the why was finally revealed. ***SPOILER*** Think Gollum in LOTR if you’ve read the books…

supercrisisNov 06, 2003 at 10:41PM

Neo110, while I don’t agree with everything you laid out, I do like the idea of Neo’s ‘love’ being recompiled into the next reload of the Matrix.

I think the Matrix was definately reloaded after all of the Smiths were destroyed, that is why everything restored itself. As for the black cat it is symbolic of the deja vu in the first episode. Which as we know signifies a change in the Matrix. So Neo’s conciousness was inserted into the Matrix just as usual, and the changes were introduced. Which is why the sun was shining and everything had warm tones.

The Architect wanted to perfect the Matrix and the Oracle did it, which is why he told her that she had been playing a ‘risky game’ because Smith could have just as easily destroyed the Matrix if the Oracle had not been right about his ability to stop Smith.

Neo110Nov 06, 2003 at 11:10PM

And the eternal question will be - how far have the humans been conned? My first thought when all the smiths “died” was “Holy shit - they’ve actually just killed everyone in the Matrix”

…

DanNov 06, 2003 at 11:41PM

supercrisis says:
Neo110, while I don’t agree with everything you laid out, I do like the idea of Neo’s ‘love’ being recompiled into the next reload of the Matrix.


With all due respect to you both - and I mean that seriously - that idea makes me a little queasy. It just doesn’t make any sense, although I’ll grant that it very well may have been the case.

There was a great post on usenet I read and I think I may have referenced in the “Reloaded” thread, about how cloying the whole “mystic love” idea is. It was a middle-aged guy responding to a teenager about how after a few dozen years and a bunch of kids, you realize that love, while great is really just another thing.

For me, it’s just that sort of old-school Hollywood treacle from which the Matrix was supposed to be a departure…

I know, I know - the Matrix was always a love story. But for the conclusion of the movie to be “import_love” seems like a twelve-year-old’s fairy tale. And furthermore, the Matrix is supposed to be the real world, right? There’s never been love before? No Romeo and Juliet? No Nick and Jessica? It just grates.

dowingbaNov 07, 2003 at 12:58AM

No, no, no! Love was eating up all the CPU power and the Matrix was going terribly slow. The whole trilogy was just the Oracle’s way of pressing “ctrl, alt, delete”.

tjhookerNov 07, 2003 at 1:23AM

The dialogue embarrassed me. The tone was very bad-Star-Trek, “dammit man, they’re coming through the hull!” And the same scenes repeated endlessly: Morpheus looking grimly on; Zion-ers looking grimly at at the ceiling; Neo and Trinity looking into one another’s eyes, grimly; the Oracle telling dopey riddles with grim resignation… wasn’t all that in the last movie?

The special effects rocked, especially when sentinels invaded Zion. But they could have cut several minutes of cornball 1950s dialogue, kept in the action scenes, and I would have been happy with an 87 minute little wafer.

CarolynNov 07, 2003 at 1:50AM

Where did all the old folk go? That’s right, I’m talking to you Ghost and you Siddarta, and you Bell…

I loved the movie. I think it completed itself well. Even though it will never be done. As it is a LOOP as demonstrated by the train man’s train.

that is all.

AndyNov 07, 2003 at 1:51AM

Derek K. Miller says:
I never thought “Star Wars” had any deep philosophical meaning, even back when I was 10 and the movies were good. But they were still fun, like “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was too. Can we let these Matrix movies be fun too? Just fun? Please?

That audience has grown up now, and isn’t delighted by such simple tricks and devices anymore. That’s their own problem to deal with, IMO. We’re all looking for something to make us feel “wow!” like we did when we were ten. We’re what’s changed here. Ask any ten year old if Matrix Revolutions was cool if you don’t believe me. They’re still hopelessly into it as much as we ever were.

Moving right along…

FreonNov 07, 2003 at 2:14AM

Carolyn
I loved the movie. I think it completed itself well. Even though it will never be done. As it is a LOOP as demonstrated by the train man’s train.

It’s not a loop. That is the whole point. They have never acheived peace with the Machines before. Zion has never been spared before. Programs have never experienced love before. Or had children. Agent Smith has never turned into a virus before and escaped the control of the Machines. None of these events have ever happened before. That means they have broken out of the loop.

MelissaNov 07, 2003 at 5:07AM

My take on “The Matrix: Revolutions”

Basically, I think Neo did die. Even though the Oracle told Sati that she thought they’d see Neo again “some day.” I’m almost sure she meant “some day” as in the next person to be “The One” if the time should come. Sort of how they spoke of Neo’s predecessors, it’s like reincarnation in a way. I think Neo sacraficed himself to save everyone, sort of like the Jesus story that’s been circulating throughout these movies. (One of my favorite lines now is in the first movie at the begining when the guy tells Neo he’s his “savior,” his “own personal Jesus” LOL) Anyway, when Angent Smith “took over” Neo I think the machines “unplugged” him therefore not only killing Neo, but also Agent Smith and all of his “copies.” I’m a little confused about the Oracle, because I’m almost POSITIVE I heard Agent Smith call the Oracle “mom” when he was in the Kitchen with her. That means the Oracle created Agent Smith, and that’s why she wasn’t afraid of him when he came, and why she knew the war would end one way or another. The first time I saw the movie I knew the Architect said he would free the ones that wanted to be freed, but I wasn’t sure if he was telling the truth. Especially since when the Oracle asked, “Do I have your word?” he replied, “What do I look like, a human?” But now I’m thinking that was pretty much a sarcastic reply, as in to say he’d never break his word like a human would. Then I also knew the Architect was a program, but for some reason I thought he controlled the machines. However as I watched and listened to the Oracle speak of the Architect to Neo, I realized that the Architect’s only purpose was to “maintain and keep balance” in the Matrix. While, of course, it was her purpose to unbalance it. (Which would explain Agent Smith, now that I think about it.) I did wonder why certain people wouldn’t want to be freed, but it’s like someone told me that a lot of people would not want to leave what they love, not knowing if they could survive in the “real world.” Plus, remember the guy (Joe Pantoliano’s character) in the first movie would have much rather not ever known the truth, if I recall correctly he said, “ignorance is bliss.” So that makes sense now. Also, I was confused on what “The Source” was, since THAT was what obviously controlled all the machines. But as I thought about it, I realized that Machine City is where “The Source” was, and that’s why Neo knew he had to go there, and that’s who he talked to. Well that’s my 2 cents!

Some Kudos must be noted…
I have recently come to like the almost “open-endedness” of the ending of the film. While I think Neo died, it really is left to interpritation. Therefore leaving the veiwer to make their own CHOICE. Almost as an inside joke to the viewers straight from the W brothers themselves.

I do have a couple complaints though…
First off, they NEVER (at least not to my knowledge) explained how Neo got in the Train Station. Everyone acted puzzled by it, yet no final explanation was offered. Second, I CANNOT BELIVE THEY KILLED OFF TRINITY!! I didn’t see a need for it. Unless maybe she asked to be killed off just so she wouldn’t have to do any more films, if it were to happen. (But I hightly doubt they’d do that) And thridly, I didn’t realize how almost useless Morpheus seems to be in this final film until I saw it the second time. He seems to fumble and be very figety when he has any lines at all. Definately not the calm, cool, collected Morpheus we saw in “The Matrix.” (Though to make things fair, Laurence Fishburne does claim that the 3rd film is his favorite.)

MartinNov 07, 2003 at 5:55AM

Would it have been more decent if they had paraphrased more of that content or less? There’s no big surprise there: they unapologetically talked about borrowing from tons of different resources.

I can’t remember the Wachowsi’s “unapologetically” talking about borrowing from tons of different sources. They said they were influenced by a lot of sources - admiting to stealing other people’s ideas would almost certainly end in a lawsuit.

In my opinion, they ripped off creator-owned material for the first movie - which was still a damn fine movie, regardless - but I think they realised that the whole world was watching what they turned out for the next two installments, and they got caught out because they couldn’t follow up by openly stealing more ideas, and what we got was a jaded, corny and derivative ending (which ended up ‘borrowing’ from movies like Aliens and Return of the Jedi anyway).

Here’s the segment of The Matrix screenplay, where Morpheus is being interrogated by Agent Smith:

Agent Smith: “I’d like to share a revelation I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realised that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.”

And the segment from The Invisbles, Issue #3 (November 1994), where a character called Tom O’Bedlam is explaining the origin of cities to Dane McGowan:

Tom O’Bedlam: “Didn’t I say I’d tell you what cities are? Listen, then, for I’ll not tell it a second time. Here it is as I was told it once, old but new-minted with each fresh telling. Our world is sick, boy. Very sick. A virus got in a long time ago and we’ve got so used to its effects, we’ve forgotten what it was like before we came ill. I’m talking about cities, see? Human cultures were originally homeostatic, they existed in a self-sustaining equilibrium with no notions of time and progress, like we’ve got. Then the city virus got in. No-one’s really sure where it came from or who brought it to us, but like all viral organisms, its one directive is to use up all the available resources in producing copies of itself. More and more copies until there’s no raw material left and the host body overwhelmed, can only die.”

Given that The Matrix wasn’t released until 1999 (a full five years after issue #3 of The Invisibles), I think we’ve got some blatant plagiarisation going on - and not just in this example - Recycling Bin has more on these strange similarities.

Neo110Nov 07, 2003 at 5:57AM

Dan Says: that idea [of love being the “reason”] makes me a little queasy. It just doesn’t make any sense, although I’ll grant that it very well may have been the case.

Hi Dan! Yeah, the love thing “got” me in the first movie too. I remember thinking how it was all cheesy and “love conquers all” etc.

However, the more I looked, the deeper I fell. It goes like this:

Most religions equate “god” and “love”. They don’t say they’re similar, they say they’re the same thing. Not in a cheesy “god is all fluffy and loving”, but in a “the process of knowing god is identical to the process of knowing love”. Kind of like accelleration = gravity. The two are indistinguishable.

The Oracle makes a big deal of one major theme in all the movies, even more than the point of understanding choices. She has a plaque above her kitchen door saying, in Lating, “Know Thyself”. Anyone who has ever been in love or found their god or enlightenment knows that to do so, ego must be supressed. You must know yourself and be comfortable with who you are and not be bogged down with nihilism and wracked with doubt. Such feelings are ultimately selfish and shorten the attention of a person from the outer world to the inner world. Some people who can’t “find themselves” go mad. Most just go to the store and become materialists. Those who can “know themselves” and find peace there are the ones who have taken the first steps to enlightenment.

Bear with me here.

Now, enlightenment and the ability to “know thyself” are actually pretty valuable and useful things to have. In fact, we could say they are a higher form of consciousness.

And my word trickery above has shown an equity between those things and being in love.

As the Oracle says, all of these things are things that you can’t be TOLD, you have to KNOW, “balls to bones”. Perhaps THIS is what the machines are after - the ability to intuit, the ability to “feel” the true from the false, the ability to find Tao, Nirvana, Enlightenment, God, Love, whatever you want to call it.

As we are told at the end of M2, Neo’s specific love for Trinity is an experiment, and more importantly, it’s a SYMBOL. Don’t forget that, right at the start of M3, we’re told by a program that “the word is not as important as the connection it implies”. So we have a tonne of words, all of which “imply the same connection”, ie direct, real, general and specific empathy with Tao, Nirvana etc.

Sounds like something an AI would want, no?

This ain’t your father’s “What is this human emotion you call… ‘love’?” ;)

Melissa says: Second, I CANNOT BELIVE THEY KILLED OFF TRINITY!! I didn’t see a need for it.

Neo needs to be willing to sacrifice himself in order to save a “general” idea of humanity. We’ve already seen that he is not willing to do this while Trinity is alive by his choosing the “screw humanity for now, I’m saving Trin and I’ll figure the rest out later” door at the end of M2. If he had chosen sacrifice to save the Matrix while Trin was still alive, you’d have a bigger plot hole than some of the daft possible continuity errors that have been spotted so far. Trinity ABSOLUTELY had to die in order to make Neo’s deal believable. At the end of all three films, Trinity’s actions have been key to Neo’s realisation of purpose. At the end of 1, she admits her love, and hence give Neo is purpose as “the One”. At the end of 2, she blindly goes to Neo’s aid and puts herself in harm’s way, forcing him to realise which door he must take (which is really what film two is all about).

At the end of 3, her death “frees” him to be able to sacrifice himself. Remember, until that point I don’t reckon he has a clue what he’s supposed to do when he gets to the city. All the way through, it’s been a kind of “hit and hope” for him. Trin is the one who (three times, mind you) crystallises Neo’s purpose. She has to die.

Also, the third film illustrates quite nicely what I believe to be the quintessence of “fate” - the fact that fate is not a straight path, but the definition of an end. Doesn’t matter how you get there - that’s not what fate and destiny are all about. They’re not the journey, they’re the destination.

So despite “doing things differently” this time, Neo’s One still does all that was prophesied. He still fulfills his programming, Did the architect not mention that Trinity “is going to die and there’s nothing you can do about it”? Was he wrong? I’ll admit, it’s a fairly general statement, but I don’t have a copy of reloaded at the mo, so I can’t look for other examples. However, is there ANYTHING in any of the films that either the Oracle or the Architect predicts that doesn’t happen (despite the destruction of Zion)? And, in fact, when we think about it, how do we know Zion is not destroyed? The Oracle states that the new peace will last “as long as it can”. If we still believe that Zion is another construct (again, this is left open, not OBVIOUS, but open. I think the second film set this idea up quite deliberately as a possibility, yet another mind-worm!), then who’s to say Zion wasn’t “reset” and those there were switched back to the Matrix with whatever memories the machines saw fit, only to be now offered a choice (in some way) about leaving - and more importantly (here’s the point) weren’t hunted when they left for Zion? Maybe that’s the peace - no more agents :)

And maybe there’s more to the “peace”. Maybe “peace” is a new element to the Matrix program - the choice is free, so the “purpose” of Zion is no longer to fight and die, but to explore and learn. This time, they don’t destroy zion when the anomaly rears its head again?

Again, these are all ideas. None fit perfectly because at some point we have to make that leap of faith.

I believe that the Wachowskis are simply trying to free our minds.

Do you think that the film’s ability to make sense has anything to do with its script in this place?

You think that’s a film you’re watching now?

mini-dNov 07, 2003 at 7:54AM

I didn’t like it at all. The only thing i liked it was the part when the centinels enter to the dock and all the stuff goes on…

Neo110Nov 07, 2003 at 8:23AM

man, I’m bored today.

One more thing. I like the fact that this series didn’t try to spoon feed us a plot.
Remember, there is no spoon.

Bake on, bake off…

;-)

Ken WaisNov 07, 2003 at 9:20AM

Now, I know there will be a sequel! I am writing a complete review of this one to be post on my site shortly. But, for those whom doubt there will be a sequel, just look at the open-endedness of this one.
1. the matrix still exists, and there is a kind of treaty btwn men and machines.
2. Neo and Trinity die. God we know whenever one of these two star-crossed lovers croaks, one’em gotta ressurect.
3. The oracle is ambiguous. Is she a sub-god in the superintelligent Architect?

Now for criticisms. Man, I have never seen more cornball romantic dialogue in my life. I mean if the woman who send offs her man to do battle had started crying with her arms cross, and shoulders heaving uncontrollably, then looked back and said: oh go on you big dope, go on and git yerself killed, then went back to crying uncontrollably (you know like the 1940s movies) it would’ve been better than the shit I saw in M-3. Trinity makes a 3 minute death speech, that is thick with the overdramatic! how many takes did it take to get them to stop giggling and finish that hokie scene? She’s saying stuff like: ya know the first time I didn’t get a chance to tell you how much…What the supermachines doing while she’s mouthing this corny bullshit? Sittin around reading Supermachine World or something?

And the Christ symbolism is so clear, why I thought I saw the sign of the Cross as Neo dies. He dies for humanity, just like good ol’ Je’ did. Couldn’t miss that? But, man was the action hip! I am glad they dropped the deep philosophizing. they didn’t have credential or aptitude for it. The invasion sequence puts everything in the Star Wars movies to shame by a quantum!

Swami PremNov 07, 2003 at 9:20AM

I have a more in-depth opinion concerning the two main themes or messages within the final movie. You can read my newest essay here if you’d like:

http://www.americanswami.com/main/2003/11/the_power_of_ch.html

GarrettNov 07, 2003 at 10:19AM

I’d just like to make a comment about something mentioned here a bit on and off…

I know a lot of people have been thinking/saying that the machine killed Smith via Neo once Smith copied himself onto Neo, and the reason is that you’re saying the machine had a link to Smith again.

I don’t think this is true, because I popped in Reloaded yesterday and it hit me that Smith copies himself onto several agents in that film, at each point the machines had a “link” to him.

I think Neo kills Smith in the end, much like he did in the first film. I think that jolt is the machine reviving Neo after he dies (much like Trinity revives him in the first film (not literally, but you know what I mean)), and then Neo destroys Smith.

leonNov 07, 2003 at 10:49AM

Great thread, thanks for hosting Jason.

Neo110, could you be more into it? ;^)

Still have several question, I’ll just ask one and see if the others “come to me.”

How can Neo perform “mad skillz” by killing the sentinals outside of the Matrix unless he’s either, A) inside another Matrix-type program, or B) using some supernatural power. If the answer is B, I become very disappointed because it’s seems to be the “easy way out.”

Ken WaisNov 07, 2003 at 10:53AM

One last comment today for all you skeptics out there, whom rightly see thru any real philosophic value in this flick.

I applaude this film for its action and spec eff wizardry. I consider it on a par with or above the Star Wars series. It is fun and exciting entertainment and that’s all. But the Wach bros understood a principle that the psychologist B.R. Forer did in the effect that a general, vague and ambiguous description can have on people. The Forer Effect is illustrated by the following passage which he gave to his students and asked them to evaluate it with reference themselves.

“You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet youtend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. “

Most student reacted positively and believed this passage to actually be describing them. But, it’s vague and can apply to almost anybody. Well, this is what the Wach bros have done with the Matrix series. Sure there’s a bit of a story here. But it can be interpreted in so, many, many ways that God knows what the hell it really means. I read in this thread and the previous one, Hindu philosophy, numerology, anagrams, on, and on. Forer’s effect in the flesh, just instead having a vague story that is applied to ourselves, we’ve got a vague tale, we can theorize, philosophize and analysis ad infinitum. Very slick Wach bros, very slick!

AnonNov 07, 2003 at 11:55AM

Movie wasn’t all that. Love scenes were way too long and the special effects weren’t anything new, and there were no answers.

If you haven’t seen it, wait for DVD.

Neo110Nov 07, 2003 at 12:09PM

heh, leon… That’s what reading the previous threads pretty much all the way through does to you ;-)

ANYWAY, a brief post this time, and yes - quick offtopic thanks to Jason for hosting this and for having such a top website. I’ve been a regular lurker since I came looking for Silkscreen many moons ago.

So, very quick note about the Forer Effect. Bingo. Pretty much all great epics have that kind of effect. The story must involve what is traditionally called the “everyman” character, in many cases this is the hero (Neo, Deckard etc), in many other cases it’s another character (Han Solo, Sam Gamgee). These provide the emotional hook that the audience can tie into.

As I said, the trick of these films is that there really is no answer, no spoon if you will. There are a lot of mutually exclusive and mutually compatible explanations about what happens in these films and why, and in many cases what you get out is what you bring. They could be thought of as philosophical Rorschach tests…

A lot of films have tried the “baffle the audience” route and have failed (Lynch’s Dune springs to mind, though it’s all a matter of opinion!), but the Matrix series succeeds in tapping into peoples desire to know, to unravel, to see the whole.

Yes, it’s easy to dismiss these movies, but frankly there’s too much to dismiss when you look into it. They’re a bit like a “splinter in your mind, slowly driving you insane”, and to achieve that is no easy feat.

Trust me, these films will piss you off in 20 years, cos you STILL won’t know why, and that’s the point.

I keep coming back to Blade Runner. I STILL can’t figure out if Deckard is a replicant. I have faith that he is, I want to believe, but I can’t point to four or five moments in the film and say “Ah-HAH! See? He has to be because of…”, cos there’s always “but what about…?” lurking in the next scene.

The skill in making the film is making me care. And as you can all probably tell by now, the Matrix certainly has me ;-)

Funny thing is, I actually hated the first movie when I saw it in the cinema…

MarshallNov 07, 2003 at 1:41PM

This might not be germane to a discussion of the content of the films, but it’s something I’d think at least a few people might be interested in…

Where can one find a WinXP or Mac OS X screensaver that simply runs the green-screen Matrix code? There was an old one for the first Matrix movie that ran nicely on Win9x but is garbage for newer versions.

Like the movie or not, I’d love that screensaver. ;)

michaelNov 07, 2003 at 1:44PM

Neo110 said:
“Trust me, these films will piss you off in 20 years, cos you STILL won’t know why, and that’s the point.”

That’s a b*llsh*t cop-out, and that’s not the point.

The greek myths don’t piss me off. Homer’s Odyssey doesn’t piss me off. Dante’s The Divine Comedy doesn’t piss me off. Faust doesn’t piss me off. Biblical parables, Buddhist Koans, and the Hindu Upanishads don’t piss me off. Revolutions did.

There are two things here. The first is the entertainment/story that is meant to capture and hold your attention through empathetic characters, keeping you interested in what is happening around them, and the actual underlying “aha!”.

Revolutions threw my empathy for the main characters out the window by making Morpheus window dressing for Niobe’s lame storyline, turning Neo’s journey (into Mordor) into a subplot, killing Trinity off in the most ridiculous way, And giving me the 5-minute Star Trek ending to saving the world from Smith.

The second thing is the underlying “aha!”. The subplot that is implied but never spoken. The thought provoking moments of the story that YOU are meant to discern for yourself. “You were told exactly what you needed to hear” and it’s up to you to figure out what it means to YOU. Revolutions blew this too, because THAT part of the story was buried miles beneath minor character subplots of audience pandering heroics.

There was no thought provoking in Revolutions except to say, “wtf?!”

Where was Morpheus the leader (spiritual and otherwise)? If his spirit/beliefs were shattered, where was THAT story?

Where was Smith’s story of what he was and what he was becoming? The anti-Neo (anti-christ)? Gee, that solved everything. Reloaded didn’t even address how he returned to the Matrix after he was destroyed by Neo in the first movie.

Where was the continuation of the Merovingian and Persephone’s stories? That would have been a helluva lot more interesting than watching Niobe grit her teeth and shout orders to a now whipped Morpheus.

The fight to save Zion should have been a subplot to the main 4 character’s stories yet it was at least half the movie. Why? Because it’s believed that people nowadays love action scenes and cool CG. I didn’t give a damn about Niobe’s, Zee’s, the kid, or Deadbolt’s stories, and there was no real story there, just a lot of pandering.

Neo110Nov 07, 2003 at 2:19PM

Michael, the weird thing is that I can’t argue with a single thing you’ve said. You’re totally right.

The thing nagging me is that I’ve felt that way about *every* one of the films so far. All I’m offering here is some insight into my experience, kinda like reviewing a Rorschach painting (I really hope I’m spelling that right :) ).

Basically, I’ve thought each film was terrible, each film was pointless UNTIL I started looking a bit deeper. That’s when you hit the interesting stuff, in these films anyway.

I guess I’m just pre-empting my own realisation that there’s a whole lot going on I missed the first time. Believe it or not, the truth is that the jury’s still out for me. Maybe it is all a con job, but if it is they’ve put a hell of a lot of effort into it.

Comparing to Dante that way kinda misses some of the point, I think. Dante wrote the Divine Comedy to make a number of direct political points, didn’t he? From what I remember, it was straight allegory, not a fun psychological Gordian knot.

I (now) view the Matrix as more of a catalyst than a story. Lots of ideas, lots of annoyances to make you think, and lots of openendedness to allow for people to see themselves and to see things they may not have seen before.

Time will tell, as ever. I’ve never (I think) said that these films were some great psychological messengers with a single cohesive point. I just think that they set out to make people think, and nobody can deny that this is exactly what they have done?

Another couple of examples - can anybody explain what *really* happens in 2001:a space odyssey? Could somebody tell me whether LOTR is simply an allegory of the Second World War, or whether it’s a Nature vs. Industrialisation warning, or whether it’s just a good fable?

zaggNov 07, 2003 at 2:52PM

Re: the ending.

Part of the reason the movie is open-ended is because the Ws are turning the story over to their Matrix Online thingy. If you read the FAQ, the idea is that the game begins where Revolutions ends. It ostenisibly sets up people participating in the MUD to choose to be “Zionists”—i.e. people working to free people from the Matrix, or people knowing they are in the Matrix and defending the status quo—i.e. Cyphers.

markNov 07, 2003 at 2:55PM

so, like neo is replicant?

GudrunTheRedNov 07, 2003 at 4:42PM

I’d like to have a few words with the 10 year olds who wrote the screenplay and the jejune dialogue. Other than that I only have one other comment: bleh.

Jimmy C.Nov 07, 2003 at 4:59PM

Overall myth: 10
Revolutions as film: 5.5 (It didn’t suck)

Spoon BoyNov 07, 2003 at 6:05PM

dan said:


The “choice” thing seems like real bullshit to me. Are they trying to say that every person going about their business in the Matrix is aware of the fact that they are not living in reality and can choose to leave at any time? That’s just absolute crap.


No. Not every person in the Matrix is aware of the true reality. But the fact that they have all been given an element of Choice gives them the *potential* to exercise their ability to choose, question their reality, and ultimately reject the Matrix. As the Architect stated in Reloaded, 99.9% of the population would blindly accept the reality imposed upon them, not realizing their power to reject it. The true threat to the Matrix is the other .1% of the population, or the anomaly. Think of this .1% of the population as the exceptional minds - representing the ultimate expression of human brilliance. A mensa of sorts, constituted by roughly one in a thousand people.

The first Matrix failed because the Architect, a perfect intelligence unaffected by illogical emotion, failed to take into account the “lesser” human mind. He therefore required a solution in order to make the Matrix work, yet his perfect mind was incapable of doing coming up with such a solution, or even comprehending the problem. As he says,

“…the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.”

After seeing Revs, we can pretty much assume he’s talking about the Oracle here. This “intuitive program” specializing in “investigating the human psyche” would likely be a program in a suite of programs, all designed to simulate human intelligence. Artificial Intelligence.

The Architect continues,

“…she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself.”

Which brings us back to your question:

Are they trying to say that every person going about their business in the Matrix is aware of the fact that they are not living in reality and can choose to leave at any time?

Not at all. The fundamental flaw he speaks of is the necessary element of Choice, which could potentially result in the same type of monumental failure as the first Matrix. However, it just so happens that the math works out where the flaw would only be expressed in a relatively small and controllable percent of the population.

The Architect continues,

“While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.”

This statement indicates that everything in the Matrix, including Tom Anderson’s decisions and choices, are not beyond the control of the higher power. While Tom may have thought he was controlling his own destiny, making his own decisions, and choosing his own path, the fact of the matter is that he had no choice @ all. It was all part of a design.

Such is life.

This taps into our own real-world questions about choice, control, fate, determinism, and so on. Good stuff.

psykoNov 07, 2003 at 6:10PM

Saw revolutions a couple of hours ago. me and my friend just stumbled out of the cinema with the most puzzled face ever , too many unanswered question….

1. Anyone more than me that thinks there was no real explanation on Neo’s question to the oracle? “How could i stop sentinals just by thinking it” , her answer was like : “well your powers are fucking incredible dude, well thats all..” I NEED TO KNOW.

2. All this neo beeing blind and seeing stuff in gold-shiny-flamy vision type seeing, dont get it at all really. How? At first i thought it was some kind of reference to the Oidipus complex and trinity beeing his mom or something when he had the blindfold but i never thought he would end up seeing stuff in flames. He saw the whole machinecity in that kind of flamy color and i dont remeber him seeing everything in that color? Did he see trinity at all? and in the end it all becomes very bright like he was going to heaven , was he dead or was was he passed out? Did anyone of u see him move at all?

s in chicagoNov 07, 2003 at 6:12PM

I think the series is a wonderful mirror of our society. Twice the flash, half the substance. The W’s realized they could throw a myriad of philosophical references into a blender and patch together a story. The movies are nothing more than stylized nonsense meant to milk us of our hard earned $$. The best part is, our pride won’t let us accept that! But hey, I fell for it, and I still love thinking up possible meanings for it all!

GhostNov 07, 2003 at 6:24PM

Now I haven’t seen the flick yet and I haven’t read any spoilers either. But by looking briefly at the general attitude of this board it looks as if you all would like to strangle the W’s.

Well I’m still going to see the movie and if it’s how most of you say then believe me I will be the first person to do the strangling.

But I’m asking you all to take a deeper look at it and really think about what you say. Don’t dismiss something just for the sake of dismissing. People did the same thing with the last Matrix flick but the movie, as a whole was really good if you understood it. I think that those kind of people can’t live any other way then to pick good things apart and view something for it’s faults immediately instead of seeing it as the whole big picture first.

Remember I haven’t fully read all the comments because of the spoilers. So if you are looking at the movie subjectively as a whole and appreciating it for what it is, then I apologize.

But I’m going and by Monday I’ll have a full review of the movie. I hope that you’re wrong just like the critics of reloaded and the original Matrix.


And don’t worry I understand…. I know it’s easier to be a stubborn critic then to try and open yourself up to understanding something when you don’t fully comprehend it.

Spoon BoyNov 07, 2003 at 6:28PM

Go Ghost! You’re the best gunman we have! ;)

KaijimaNov 07, 2003 at 6:43PM

A few random but probably long, remarks:


First, a technical note. I believe Reloaded did address Smith returning to the Matrix because first, it was stated several times that programs which no longer have a function are by the rules, supposed to return to the source to get decommissioned and shut down - but those who were afraid of that instead hid out in the Matrix, which clearly indicated that a program could both CHOOSE not to return to the Machine mainframe, and could come to the Matrix from the mainframe. Also, Smith clearly stated that after he was “destroyed” in the Matrix, he knew what he was supposed to do (indicating follow the rules, and return to the Source, since Neo entirely destroyed his Matrix avatar) but couldn’t due to his obbession with Neo. As to WHY Smith would be expected to be deleted for that, since Agents obviously get shot but just reappear in a new coppertop body, Neo didn’t kill Smith normally - he got inside and entirely uncreated his Matrix pressence. Even when I was first viewing Reloaded, I instantly figured that an event like that would indicate the Agent program was now insufficient to deal with Neo, thus useless, thus needed to be retired. And remember, when Neo encounters the new Agents in Reloaded, he realized they are upgrades. The old Agents were obviously retired because they were now useless for dealing with the paramount threat to the system.

On another topic, whether anyone sees it as pretentious or not, the Wachowski Brothers had already stated in interviews that nobody would ever be allowed to directly “get” the Matrix trilogy because there were things buried deep in the story that were intentionally kept partially hidden. In point of fact, the Oracle at several points in the trilogy, tells people seeking answers that in the end “you’re just going to have to make up your own damn mind”. I kinda suspect this is in part, a message to the audience that they’re not going to have the answers handed to them, and are going to have to work out for themselves what the hell is going on and make a choice what to believe.

(Which personally I am coming more and more to respect as a decision for how to tell the story, because in essense it’s a “forth wall breaker”… putting the viewer outside the film in the same context with the characters in the story, who in the end have to make choices instead of following along and being told what to do/think. I can understand why some people will eternally call this “a big con” or a cop-out, and perhaps by some traditional standards it IS a cop-out. I just think that a lot of traditional standards are rather overrated.)

Which leads into another comment - all the “blather” about choice vs determinism in Reloaded wasn’t blather as far as I’m concerned and paid off in Revolutions, for people who saw it. Consider this:

In the Matrix, Morpheus first asks Neo if he believes in fate and he says no… because he wants to be in control of his path, to be able to make choices. Yet the foundation is then built for a deterministic prophesy, handed down from a machine oracle who, it could perhaps be assumed, is operating with massively advanced prediction capabilities. (She wouldn’t be much of an Oracle without them, now would she!) So instead of free will and choice, “the cold equation” seems put forth as what is really at the base of everything, with events doomed to play out with mathmatical precision.

In Reloaded, Merv outright makes fun of The One, the Prophet, and the PVC Avenger for believing choice has any reality and lays out how its all just cause and effect, and they are doing nothing but following instructions and doing what they are told to do. And afterward, in the elevator, our heroes have their first inkling of doubt. They did what they were told to do, and assumed was part of “the great plan”, yet the outcome didn’t live up to expectations. But they redouble their faith and figure it still has to be part of the plan, and continue to carry on. And so they keep at it, fighting tooth and nail until Neo gets to the Source, meets Col Sanders (who has quickly hid his bucket of chicken behind his chair as Neo opens the door), and finds out that yes, it was all a rig to manipulate people with mathmatical precision. What happens next is that Neo has to make a choice. But is it a real choice or still predetermined?

This is something that I feel can and will be debated endlessly and there may or may not be a “right” answer. But the fact is, Neo does make a different choice that every single one of his predecessors (or so we’re lead to believe) and chooses to do what the Architect says is predetermined can’t be avoided - stop Trinity from dying. (Which, actually, if we want to extend our paranoia about the tyranny of math, was in fact true, since Trinity eventually did die in a different place. But that’s beside the immediate point.)

From that moment forward, everything changes. Neo changes -immediate- fate at least and brings Trinity back - then tells Morpheus the prophesy was all another control. Now people have to -make choices-. They’re flying blind.

And after that, in Revolutions, everything seems to be about truly making choices and accepting the consequences, as the Oracle lays out when musing over her own situation and “death”. (Even if we know at least part of that bit was inspired by the real-world need to sadly find a new actress for the part.) Now people are not following a prophesy - they’re making things happen themselves, at least on one level. I did not find the focus on Zion and the “bit characters” to be one whit irrelevant, personally. In Reloaded the Oracle states that the journey of the One is the journey of many (or similar - can’t remember the exact line). Many factors and people go into allowing the One to finish his path, and this is what happens in Revolutions - Niobi, the Kid, Captain Mifune (who will go down in history as the baddest dude to ever strap himself into an APU), Z, and the list goes on.

(Another side note: a large part of the point for me is that Neo is fighting for people; there’s a lot of value in actually showing those people and giving you a chance to care about their own struggle and feel that Neo’s compassion is not in vain - they’re worth fighting and dying for.)

KaijimaNov 07, 2003 at 6:54PM

As one additional remark, I also happen to think that a lot of the criticism here is itself a wonderful mirror of our modern society - our ability to be endlessly cynical and come to the most pessimistic foregone conclusions about *anything*

For the people sitting and laughing at how the people discussing the Matrix Trilogy for being “conned”, what would you rather have? Another nice and tidy little nugget of “wisdom” delivered to your doorstep which does nothing but reaffirm your already blisteringly morbid view of the world? It’s little wonder why hip, detached irony and nihilism are so popular these days ^_^

Regardless of how much of a “cinematic masterpiece” these movies are by whatever canned critical standards you care to employ, they are making a lot of people goddamned think. What other series of films have come out, hollywood or “indy” in recent history that have caught the imagination of so many people and caused them to spend so much effort on just plain -thinking-? I’m sure some people will point to stuff like Requiem for a Dream, or things even more obscure - films which, aside from how good they are as filmmaking, still do little more than pander to our own laconic facination with our own dysfuction, so that we can nod and feel we are wise for recognizing that society is screwed up.

(I find it intriguing to consider that in history, classical philosophers have typically been regarded as “con men” and spinners of bullshit to the public by those who are a part of the status quo. A few centuries later, they’re considered visionaries. I don’t really have an opinion as to whether the Wachowski’s are money-grubbing con-men or visionaries - but it’s facinating to watch some eternal mechanics play themselves out. Hey, maybe the Merv was on to something!)

Spoon BoyNov 07, 2003 at 7:19PM

Kaijima said:

I also happen to think that a lot of the criticism here is itself a wonderful mirror of our modern society - our ability to be endlessly cynical and come to the most pessimistic foregone conclusions about *anything*

Well put. Any piece of creative work that can provoke the kind of response seen in these threads should be recognized as an exceptional achievement.

SajjmanNov 07, 2003 at 7:24PM

Two things that struck my mind :


1. Dont you all think that the movement and sounds that the squiddis make resemble to insects? The more i think about it the more i feel its this way , they have little insect hands and they swarm around like insects. When neo sees the big worm-machine in the machineworld you see alot of little machine-insects crawl around, what purpose do they have btw ?

2. The crew of the hammer , they have gunnames , anyone noticed that ? ;D Colt , A.K , mauser. just sidenote.

Spoon BoyNov 07, 2003 at 7:35PM

Kaijima said:

And so they keep at it, fighting tooth and nail until Neo gets to the Source and finds out that yes, it was all a rig to manipulate people with mathmatical precision. What happens next is that Neo has to make a choice. But is it a real choice or still predetermined?

Predetermined, if you ask me. The truth is that he has no choice. He only thinks he does. But really, is there a difference?

This is something that I feel can and will be debated endlessly

Indeed!

Such is life.

Question: Did the previous Neos choose Door 1 or Door 2?

MckenzieNov 07, 2003 at 8:27PM

Furthermore, Sati’s mother was an interactive software designer, if I recall correctly. What did her father do again? Surely at least the mother’s job has some significance.

I’m really interested in the Sati stuff.
» by dan on November 06, 2003 at 10:55:16 ET
Her father was a program who was in charge of harvesting energy from the human crops. So Sati was a program that combined the creativeness of her mother aand the affinity for light and energy from her father. So it is likely that the sunrise she created at the end had nothing to do with her being another “one”, and more to do with the fact that her entire purpose was to create beautiful effects with light. That would indeed be something that the machines would consider to be useless and gorunds for termination.

MckenzieNov 07, 2003 at 8:27PM

Furthermore, Sati’s mother was an interactive software designer, if I recall correctly. What did her father do again? Surely at least the mother’s job has some significance.

I’m really interested in the Sati stuff.
» by dan on November 06, 2003 at 10:55:16 ET
Her father was a program who was in charge of harvesting energy from the human crops. So Sati was a program that combined the creativeness of her mother aand the affinity for light and energy from her father. So it is likely that the sunrise she created at the end had nothing to do with her being another “one”, and more to do with the fact that her entire purpose was to create beautiful effects with light. That would indeed be something that the machines would consider to be useless and gorunds for termination.

BuzzNov 07, 2003 at 8:51PM

Warshawski?

Could it be that this isn’t a misspelling and that there is some inside joke/reference that 148 posters got but I didn’t?

- V.I. Warshawski
- Wachowski Brothers

Lemme know.

And has anyone else read the article on the brothers W in Wired? I knew nothing of their story, especially not the, um, hairy bits. Makes you want to examine the Matrix’s whole doppelganger thing afresh.

dowingbaNov 07, 2003 at 8:54PM

Neo: in the Book Fellowship of the Ring, it quite clearly spells out what happens to Gandalf when he and the Balrog fall into the pit.

the dudeNov 07, 2003 at 10:32PM

Buzz, could you please post a link to the Wired article? I searched the site, but could not find it. Thanks in advance.

AlexNov 07, 2003 at 10:36PM

Garrett says, “…because I popped in Reloaded yesterday and it hit me that Smith copies himself onto several agents in that film…”

Yeah, that’s a really good point that I hadn’t thought about before.

——

Another thing I was wondering: Obviously programs can “infect” the regular human population (a la Smith). Why wouldn’t the people in the Matrix simply be “infected” with a machine sub-routine that prevents them from realizing that “something is wrong” with the Matrix to begin with? Since humans inside the Matrix can be both humans and carry viral code as well, why wouldn’t that be another method of control?

nixNov 08, 2003 at 1:13AM

Quick question for someone about to see Revolutions again (or just saw it):

“G-O-D” letters on the fridge in Oracle’s apartment???

A co-worker said that when Neo steps into the kitchen at the Oracle’s apartment that he stands in front of the fridge. On the fridge is magnetic letters that kids might play with spelling out words. When Neo steps in front of the random words, he crops some of them and the letters “G-O-D” are vertically spelled along the outline of his body. Just looking for some confirmation on this one (although I’ll probably see it again this weekend). Thanks!

jxdxbxNov 08, 2003 at 1:16AM

psyko says, “All this neo beeing blind and seeing stuff in gold-shiny-flamy vision type seeing, dont get it at all really. How?”

He’s able to see machine stuff without eyes because he’s always partially in the matrix. He can’t see people.

RickNov 08, 2003 at 1:56AM

Following the opinion of those that think Neo was sort of a link to Smith thru which the machines could eliminate the agents/virus, would that make Neo… an antivirus? ;)

And as for the question about holes in the plot, I should remind a lot of you that the trilogy is over, at least cinematicly. But there seems to exist a big window to explore with the forecoming Matrix Online, which may help us fully understand parts that we couldn’t grasp thru the movies. Remember the animatrix?? Lots of questions were cleared there! And the game! Also gave us some pointers!

I’m overall happy with the trilogy and amused with all the discussion online about it.

Just gonna keep myself posted and read along…

Spoon BoyNov 08, 2003 at 3:27AM

jkottke says:

I’m not so sure the cookie part is necessary

Dude, the cookie is one of the coolest metaphors in the whole trilogy!

btw, did anybody miss our original Oracle as much as I did? It’s truly a shame that actress Gloria Foster wasn’t around to shoot her scenes for Revs, particularly since it had more Oracle scenes than the other two films. I really wish it could’ve been Foster to utter the final line of the trilogy before fading to black forever.

However, in light of the unfortunate circumstances, I must say that the W’s did a great job working things around the Oracle character’s new identity. I loved the notion that the Oracle “had to get a new shell.”

Spoon BoyNov 08, 2003 at 3:55AM

nix says:
In need of some enlightenment here. Some quick questions:

- Where does the train come from each trip (train = network pipe)?

I like to think of the Mobil Ave station as a router. Just as the station lies “between one world and another” and contains passengers between two different locations, a router lies “between one network and another” and contains data packets between two different networks or subnets. When a packet is in a router itself, it’s technically in limbo, existing in neither network @ that moment. The train station is a brilliant metaphor for this.

The Train Man himself? Not sure exactly, although he reminded me of a couple routing engineers I’ve met.

- It is delivering programs and/or people from some place correct?

My initial interpretation was that the train station was a purgatory of sorts; a holding place for programs void of purpose and therefore facing deletion (as the Oracle described on the park bench). Apparently this is all controlled by the Merovingian, who is the one to dictate which programs stay and which ones go. Think of his rules acting as a network firewall between Purpose and Pointlessness. It’s notable that Sati’s father was in Merv’s restaurant in Reloaded, presumably making a deal or plea to let his daughter back into the network.

Speaking of which, it was nice to see Persephone serving her purpose again. :)

SajjmanNov 08, 2003 at 5:51AM

When smiths stands in the crater after he beat the shit out of neo, he is all schizo (probably the oracle talking) : “Its like before , i stood here , yeah i stood here and said : “Everything that has an beginning has an end mr.anderson. No did i say that? GET AWAY FROM ME!” or something like that , why did he get all scared? And how come smith/oraclemix remembers this happening before if none of the One’s took the same door as neo therefor the product of that choice shouldn’t have happened before so how could anyone remember it happen ?

dxgartenNov 08, 2003 at 7:05AM

After reading so many posts here, I came to the conclusion that I can only accept/fanwank explanations about the unexplainables if I see the entire thing as still within the Matrix, including ‘the real world’. Some things that puts me in this mindset:

1. When the Architect told Neo that Neo has done this before and will do it again, it sounds so much like a programming that is restarted every cycle. I don’t see how the Architect (or for that matter, the Oracle) can guess how all Neos will react in certain situation if this had happened in real life, because humans are different and their emotions can’t be predicted. However, humans’ brain patterns can be read and manipulated under some circumstances. Neo’s action in ‘the real world’, therefore, is easily calculated if ‘the real world’ is just another layer of the Matrix. All that they need is to insert a suggestion on the brain of an individual to make him believe that he is the saviour of the world. And from there, the machine can calculate/read the sort of action that a person under such assumption will commit.

2. This will also explain why Neo can destroy the sentient robots in ‘the real world’ and Smith is capable of climbing into ‘the real world’. It’s because ‘the real world’ is just another layer of the Matrix designed to make those who have ‘escaped’ believe that they have escaped from the Matrix and for the Neo(s) to believe that they really are ‘the one’ who has special powers to destroy the machine.

3. Like some people have said, it seems so taxing for the machine to actually allow such experimentation (releasing Neo, destroying Zion, repeat ad infinitum, etc) to happen in real life. It was just too grand in scale that I find it impossible to happen in reality over and over again with exact or similar result. But I don’t see it impossible happening inside a simulation. If anything, this confirms my suspicion that the entire “Matrix” cycle is only possible if it happens as a recurrent program that is needed to be run in order to keep the humans inside the Matrix feel as if they have a ‘choice’.

I do still have some questions that are left unanswered after this movie is finished. For example, what happens to all of the humans that Smith tookover within the Matrix? I mean, the purpose of the Matrix is so that the humans will believe the illusion that they’re living a normal life. If they suddenly see themselves as ‘Smith’ and see hundreds of ‘Smiths’, wouldn’t their brain function going to get confused sooner or later in regards to their identity?

I am glad I read this board. I was pretty pissed off when I first saw the movie. I have questions that I can’t reconciled beforehands. But for now the idea that the ‘real world’ is just another layer of the Matrix works for me.

Scott HillisNov 08, 2003 at 8:40AM

I recall an interview from the time the first movie was released in which the Wachowskis said they had written the story as a trilogy. I believe part of why there has been such a negative reaction to the sequels, particularly “Revolutions”, is because there has been time in between installments for people to speculate and form theories about what was coming down the road.

The typical sequel tries to outdo its predecessor in terms of effects and story twists. The thing about “The Matrix” series is that they were conceived from the get-go as a single continuous story. Though it is three movies, it is actually a graphic novel. I think the story is meant to be taken all at once.

Take a classic like “2001”. What would happen if you divided in three parts and made each part into a fuller movie released months or years apart? You would probably get a lot of people invested in the series who began speculating on the conclusion. I bet the third part wouldn’t get great reviews.

It could be argued that if “The Matrix” is a graphic novel brought to the screen, then the Wachowskis failed to fully understand the expectations of a film audience. Personally, I was greatly disappointed at the third film, but it is growing on me, and reading threads like this one have helped to gel some ideas. The pieces are slowly clicking into place, and I expect my second viewing will be much more positive. I can’t wait to get this thing on DVD and watch all three films back to back, the way I think they were meant to be seen.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 9:32AM

Her father was a program who was in charge of harvesting energy from the human crops.

Well, no, her father was a program that had a sepcific funtion in relating to power plants - balancing out processes. Sound like what the Architecht does in the Matrix at all?

And her mother was an interactive software designer, an AI deisgner, program. Sound anything like what the Oracle does in the Matrix? And if the Matrix has parents, the Oracle and the Architect, as implied by the Architect’s speech… well.

So Sati was a program that combined the creativeness of her mother aand the affinity for light and energy from her father. So it is likely that the sunrise she created at the end had nothing to do with her being another “one”, and more to do with the fact that her entire purpose was to create beautiful effects with light.

She had no purpose outside the Matrix. She could be adapted to a purpose inside the Matrix. The Merv had an interest in bringing her in from the machine world and I doubt his interest was planning for the fucking fourth of July as he is clearly indicated to serve a role similar in nature to the fucking devil.

Neo came from the outside. Sati came from the outside. Merv himself is a program that, although not initially, probably returned from the outside world after his iteration of the Matrix concluded. Whatever Sati’s purpose may be it is not “to create beautiful effects with light.” Thats just asinine and uninformed. (Like my posts from the 6th) In creating the rainbow she is rewriting the Matrix, period. What that implies feel free to debate, but that is whats happening.


Also worth noting, the gold coloring used at the beginning of the Second Renaissance resembles the source Neo sees in this movie. Along with that the AI program that guides is through that history is represented by an Indian Goddess. Given the meaning of Kamala, Sati’s Mother’s name, and that Sati’s mother is an Interactive Software Designer… well, I’ll just say Hmmm…

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 9:45AM

I do still have some questions that are left unanswered after this movie is finished. For example, what happens to all of the humans that Smith tookover within the Matrix? I mean, the purpose of the Matrix is so that the humans will believe the illusion that they’re living a normal life. If they suddenly see themselves as ‘Smith’ and see hundreds of ‘Smiths’, wouldn’t their brain function going to get confused sooner or later in regards to their identity?

As the humans are waking up, when we see Sati who seems to be the first to wake up, we see the black cat and the glitch indicating the deja vu inducing rewriting of the matrix from the first movie. Likely all of the people are being written back into their beds to start a new day as if nothing had ever happened, among other changes. The question (for me) is who is doing the rewriting, the architect or Sati or some combination of the 2. Now I know its the Architect but still… I’ll continue to speculate.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 9:54AM

And since the way the Merv is portayed as the devil dependes heavily on greek mythology (his wife persephone, cerebus at the door - represented as the three triplet bald guards) that would cast the trainman as the ferryman who brings people from the real world (the machine world) into hades (the matrix) and the train station the river Styx. Yes, I like the router analogy, i just think everything in a scenario like this has a duality of purpose, its practical explanation in terms of computing and its historical/mythological analouge.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 9:59AM

As to Seraph and his being called a wingless angel. I see him as likely having been a communications program that was designed to move freely between the Matrix and the Machine World. When he lost that ability he lost his wings, his ability to fly. This is reinforced by his code in reloaded resembling the source/machine code (that Neo can see even though blind) instead of the traditional green and black Matrix code.

bellNov 08, 2003 at 10:10AM

well wed 2.00pm the music kicked in, wow this is it i thought, all the answers, i thought to my self where are the w’s gonna take us, surely they cant do no wrong as all the pieces are in place… well the w’s havent taken the right royal piss out of the lot of us and sold out big style… in fact so much so i did not have to engage my brain at all through the whole 2hrs… admittedly it was visually stunning and a well paced film… in fact the smith neo face off was amazing… but in the end get past the fireworks and what do you have…? not a lot in fact the story did not progress at all from reloaded… the w’s abandoned every thing the set up in the two previous movies… the irony is that matrx 1 was very much anti establishment, corporate control… revolutions in essense in pro capitalistic meaningless emptyheaded nonsense, the w’s opted for the lucas/phantom menace route, they are in it for the money and that it… why not you may say if you can make hundreds of millions the w’s are right to do it, but if that means sacrificing a once great story, bigger fools them…

my rating… spectacle 9
heart and intelligence 1

all those who thought matrix within a matrxi was lame i bet youre laughing on the other side of you face right now :)

ShannonNov 08, 2003 at 10:34AM

Well I just saw it, and I wish I hadn’t. It was much more satisfying to imagine all the great things that could have come from the (excellent) first film, and the (exciting but missing the original could it be realthing) Reloaded.

I am really sad in a way that all that effort, time, and money was spent when the result was so… unsatisfying. The first had the story (and what a story), the second had the martial arts going for it, but the third? Big bangs that I could have seen in any action flick. Okay, so they looked great, but you seen one, you seen ‘em all.

Spoon boy says
As the Architect stated in Reloaded, 99.9% of the population would blindly accept the reality imposed upon them, not realizing their power to reject it. The true threat to the Matrix is the other .1% of the population, or the anomaly. Think of this .1% of the population as the exceptional minds - representing the ultimate expression of human brilliance. A mensa of sorts, constituted by roughly one in a thousand people.

P.S. dosn’t the architect say nearly 99% - that means that there is a lot more people who are unhappy than if there were 99.9% happy. That means (more than) 1 in 100, not 1 in 1000.

hosenpantsNov 08, 2003 at 1:29PM

are y’all telling me that it took ‘em two whole extra movies to remake the “owner of a lonely heart” video?

heck, my copy of 90125 cost me a buck, used. i’ll stick with that and the first flick.

Joe KaczmarekNov 08, 2003 at 2:03PM

I haven’t had time to read all the comments yet, I plan too, but I’m sorry if this has already been stated (hell, perhaps it needs to be stated again just to try to get it to sink into people’s heads).

The first movie asked us, challened us, to free our minds. To open our minds up to possibilities we haven’t imagined or fathomed. It opened up questions for us to find our own answers within ourselves. And then by the second and third movie everyone’s all upset because all the answers weren’t handed to us? How did everyone go from being so open minded about the first movie to being closed minded for the last two? Of course the movies are still going to have open questions and unanswered thoughts… would you expect anything less after the first movie. The first movie set this high standard of wanting us movie-viewing public to open and use our minds, to look for the answers… and now everyone just wants all the answers handed to them so they don’t have to think about it? I now understand the problem I’ve found with religion. Prophets and philosophisers come up with great ideas to get us to think about ourselves and the world around us, but people don’t want to think for themselves, they’ll just wait for a priest or a fanatic to spell everything out for us, just tell us what to, what it means, and yes I will follow you blindly.

And now for some other thoughts I’ve had…

Smith is the virus, Neo is the anti-virus… or Neo is matter and Smith is antimatter, and what happens when you get matter and antimatter together? Boom they annihilate themselves. Or just think of it as programmers, in order to defeat the virus the machines in the city (the Matrix is just a small part of the machine world, like the power company is just a small part of all our government organizations), needed to get their hands on a copy to dissect it and figure out how to stop it, and Neo was their direct link (and an organic buffer to keep themselves from getting infected) to get that copy. (But again, these are my answers and my thoughts, you have to find your own, they made these movies to still keep us thinking.)

Neo seeing the light, stopping the squidies, etc… Gee, do you really think that the only machine parts in the people are just a neural plug and some body plugs? Machines are breeding people, they can put a lot more hardware into them. I think that some of the hardware still left in Neo, his subconscious mind figured out how to use it, how to use it as a radio, a transmitter, a link to still talk to the machines, to put him back into the Matrix without a plug (Neo went wi-fi baby!), to send a kill command to nearby squidies, and to help him see their electrical patterns when his own organic eyes failed him.

Why the machines never went into orbit to get solar power? Well they did give us the answer for that without us having to find our own answers. The scorched sky isn’t just a bunch of black clouds… it’s an EMP sky… the machines can’t go near it without being zapped. No wonder they’re still stuck on the ground.

And as for someone saying above about why didn’t the machines just set a biological weapon, an organic virus, upon the Zionists (using a body that they freed from the Matrix)? Again, gee… well what do you think the hovercraft are for? To pick up people, to run medical tests on them, and to quarrantine them long enough to check for any biological warfare? That’s my answer.

So, if I’ve recovered anything anyone has said above, then just count this as me seconding their vote and trying to get it to sink into the heads of the non-believers (the ones who don’t like thinking for themselves) some more. And if I’ve horribly messed up my spelling anywhere… I’m typing fast and there’s no spell checker here, so please excuse me.

Free your mind.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 2:56PM

Why the machines never went into orbit to get solar power? Well they did give us the answer for that without us having to find our own answers. The scorched sky isn’t just a bunch of black clouds… it’s an EMP sky… the machines can’t go near it without being zapped. No wonder they’re still stuck on the ground.

And the constant Electromagnetic field of the clouds couldn’t be used to generate power? A huge field of contained consistent lightning can’t be used for that purpose? OK. Sure.

In the Second Renaissance the humans nuke 01. A series of nuclear blasts like that would have worked because nuclear blasts are accompanied by huge shockwaves and electromagnetic pulses.

“This idea dates back to nuclear weapons research from the 1950s. In 1958, American tests of hydrogen bombs yielded some surprising results. A test blast over the Pacific Ocean ended up blowing out streetlights in parts of Hawaii, hundreds of miles away. The blast even disrupted radio equipment as far away as Australia.” -From http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb2.htm

If that isn’t proof enough that the brothers, as authors, don’t know what they are talking about then what is.

The scorched sky is not unlike, say, the effects of nuclear winter that a massive human nuclear attack against the machine city would cause. They wouldn’t have had to scoorch the sky.

And, given the absence of light and plant life as visibly demonstrated in the movies when we see the surface there would be no breathable air for the humans in Zion nor would there be enough heat for humans to continue living.

Thats why its called nuclear winter.

So what is it then… the machines working so hard heats the planet… and, uh yeah, they generate fresh oxygen as a biproduct of…umm… producing steel. No.

The problem isn’t that the answers weren’t handed to us. For the most part a bunch of answers were handed to us and that makes the christians very happy. They’re like god damned roaches those ones.

The problem is that instead of having the answers subtly in the movie the answers aren’t there at all. They aren’t buried in there. I went the second night to clear up some things I thought were there and they weren’t.

And even if they were, thats not good filmmaking.

There is no debate about certain issues.

The special effects were nice - impressive even.

The acting was what Keanu Reeves is famous for, he just took some moderately good actors down that very sad path with him. (Someone, go ahead and debate this. Tell me Keanu Reeves is a good actor. Please. He is a better actor than me, sure, and probably you, but compared to his peers, no, he is a very bad actor. good man, bad actor.)

The directing is at fault for a lot of that. (The brothers may have great ideas but they shouldn’t be directing them. This may be open for debate, but nah, they’re bad directors.)

The dialouge was cheese for even a straight action movie. (Couldn’t you see Stallone saying “Man she’s got a big ass.” or the comedic side-kick saying “I believe Neo!” as he shoots out the chains to save the day. The moments of short dialouge were maybe the worst part of the movie. And Hugo Weaving, who is AMAZING the best actor in the movie was made to deliver some stinkers in here.)

They tried and they, at best, constructed a good open ended story, but they made a very bad final movie.

They tried and they, at best, buried great ideas in the film, but they made a very bad second movie even with the third to balance that equation.

They made a good first movie that holds up well because they had years of brilliant comics authors and some basic understanding of the tenets of philosophy to apply sticky finger to.

MartinNov 08, 2003 at 3:24PM

Scott Hillis says:
I recall an interview from the time the first movie was released in which the Wachowskis said they had written the story as a trilogy. I believe part of why there has been such a negative reaction to the sequels, particularly “Revolutions”, is because there has been time in between installments for people to speculate and form theories about what was coming down the road.

This is nonsense.

The Wachowski’s said no such thing until The Matrix turned out to be a surprise hit - and Joel Silver realised he had a cash cow on his hands.

Then they started saying it was originally conceived as a trilogy.

There’s a negative reaction to Revolutions because they claimed there was more story to tell after The Matrix, when clearly, there wasn’t.

Certainly not an interesting one, beyond stringing together some showy kung-fu sequences, bashing out some expensive special-effects and attempting to be clever about it all with some half-baked armchair philosophy and Harry Potter-like plot clues (anyone dumb enough to have failed to see the Mobil=Limbo stroke of genuis should stick to stuff like Freddy Got Fingered).

I’ll give them credit for some parts of Reloaded and some very small parts of Revolutions - parts, which when condensed into a single movie, could have given us something worthwhile.

- The meeting with Neo and The Oracle in the Courtyard.

- The first half of the burly brawl (the second half looked like something from a PS2 game).

- The Merovingian Castle fight and the freeway chase.

- Neo meeting The Architect.

- The superbrawl.

- Agent Smith realising he’s done it all before right at the end.

Get rid of that utter drivel in Zion and all those crusties dancing.

Dump Bane.

Dump about 90 percent of Revolutions - i.e. a war about a place I don’t even care about, and seemed much more intresting before we found out what it was.

Drive the whole plot with the Merovingian and Persephone - and you’ve maybe - maybe - got a sequel to the original movie that’s worth watching.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 3:37PM

Sorry about the post repeating, what is it, 4 times up there. Accidents will happen.

Juanita DarkNov 08, 2003 at 4:01PM

The machines wouldn’t have used a biological weapon on the Zionites because it would be a waste of resources and there would be no 100% certainty that it wouldn’t spread back to the field/Matrix humans.

Plus, they wouldn’t do it for this very reason: They liquify the bodies of the dead Zionites to feed to those still in the Matrix. Why waste perfectly good human food by contaminating it with no sure control on said contaminated humans. It could go so horribly wrong.

neo110Nov 08, 2003 at 4:11PM

Took a well needed day off ;)

Anyway, some thoughts as I’m reading through…

Kaijima:
Testify, my brother! Heh, I like what you’re saying. More condensed and concise than my rambling and often purple prose…

Here’s a quickie on determinism. The determinisim in the films is all about *results* not *paths*, as I touched on earlier. I’m seeing more and more references to this, so I thought I’d go further with an example:

Think about the broken vase in M1. “Don’t worry about the vase”, and Neo looks around to see what vase she’s talking about. It’s his looking around that topples the vase. “Would you have broken it if I hadn’t said anything?”. Okay, so this is kid’s stuff, but the point is that the Oracle doesn’t “predict” in a “You’re about to turn around and knock that vase over” kind of way. She predicts in a “I know that vase is getting broken and that you do it. As to _how_ that happens, I’m stumped.”

Same is true of most of the predictions made in the film. Specifics are left out, and I think this is where the duality of Oracle and Architect comes in. The Architect just cares about the result. He knows that Neo will eventually end up in the source, as there is no way for him not to. He doesn’t know *how*, though - the “others” have all chosen the correct door, Neo refuses, so the Architect thinks “interesting”, then pays it no mind as the development is inconsequential in terms of the larger truth that Neo will return to the source. It’s like predicting semi-chaotic events like airflow. We can’t predict exactly where each molecule of air will flow over a wing, but that doesn’t stop planes from flying.

So Neo has “choice”, in that he “chooses” which path he can take to his ultimate destiny. That doesn’t change his “destiny” (cf “destination”), but it means he can surprise and educate his observers (the Oracle and Architect) in how he gets there, in how he can “grow” beyond whatever level of “programming” you choose to believe he has already recieved.

Sati’s stuff:
Yeah, that’s some interesting stuff. Sati, for me, illustrates the future, a future where the programs who inhabit the matrix can to some extent “choose” their purpose. Sati is considered “useless” at the start of the film, but she helps make the matrix more “human” at the end… interesting, no? Why make it more human, how are Neo and Sati linked etc etc.

Hidden stuff:
As I pointed out, think “there is no spoon” when looking for a unifying point to the movie. The movies are there to force us to “bend our minds” while seeking the spoon/point/message while eventually realising that the lack of a conventional ‘spoon’ makes the films no less important or interesting. Discuss ;)

dowingba:
To clarify, I didn’t mean simply “what chain of events unfold when Gandalf actually fights the Balrog”, though I appreciate that’s probably how it came across. From the book : ” Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell. Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done.” I actually think that gets paraphrased in the film too. My point is that this is a fairly major point. We don’t really get the “You all thought I was dead, but I wasn’t!” line, we get the “Actually, you’re right - I am dead, now I’m not, and I’m not going to tell you how that all works.” Which is very similar to the squiddie stopper.

If you’re in any doubt that the two events are equally important in terms of their respective plots, imagine if Gandalf *hadn’t come back*…

Anyway, not wanting to draw too many close parallels, just showing that we don’t need to have everything spelled out. I think one of the problems is that we have a lot of computer geeks (myself included) who are into the Matrix series and who really want to know how it all works. The film is about more than mechanics, it’s also about leaps of faith ;)

more…

Alex said:

Why wouldn’t the people in the Matrix simply be “infected” with a machine sub-routine that prevents them from realizing that “something is wrong” with the Matrix to begin with?

Because such a program would be impossible within the framework laid down by the Architect. Trying to persuade people the Matrix is 100% true 100% of the time just doesn’t work. We have seen that those who reject the Matrix can reject its programming as well - they can bend and break its rules. It would only be a matter of time before the “it’s all real” code would be broken internally and spontaneously by someone like Neo, and you’d STILL need the option of Zion to keep those people happy. Why go to the extra hassle?

Oh, and another quickie - residual self image. Someone asked why the machines went to the bother of making Matrix me look like Zion me, if I’m 99.9% likely never to see Zion me? Simple - efficiency. Why bother designing thousands of variants on human form as avatars when you can just read each baby’s genes and use that as their avatar?

more..?

michaelNov 08, 2003 at 4:17PM

Yes the trilogy needs to be looked at as a whole continous story, but each movie is also a fairly complete story in itself and can be looked at individually. The most complete and encapsulated story being found in the first movie. Had this movie been the only Matrix movie, it would still have spawned the culture “the Matrix” has. I don’t feel “conned” by Revolutions (and I actually like Reloaded, though still not as much as the first film) or the Ws, I feel let down by them as storytellers. I didn’t project my expectations on the films, but the story seemed to be the main thrust of what the Ws were trying to do. Take and intelligent story, and make entertaining, thought-provoking, intelligent movies that could be enjoyed on many different levels. I think Revolutions failed to further the story of the One and company well.

Yes there is a larger story there, but they have been telling it through the One and company since the first movie—why would you “choose” to pass over their stories now in favor of the stories of lesser characters who don’t mean anything to “me” the audience who has been following the main characters through their journey.

I disagree with the person who said all the Zion sections in Revolutions needed to be there so that we knew what Neo was fighting for. We learned that from Reloaded. And without knowing the HOW of it, it was fairly discernable that all or most of the One and company had to die. The Ws just handled it poorly in my opinion. That goes back to them being more movie-makers than storytellers. Revolutions by itself is extremely light on story. In context of the other two movies, it is a poor ending to what was such an interesting story (Neo and company).

Kaijima said:

I also happen to think that a lot of the criticism here is itself a wonderful mirror of our modern society - our ability to be endlessly cynical and come to the most pessimistic foregone conclusions about *anything*

I disagree. Criticism does not equate cynicism.

Spoon Boy said:

Well put. Any piece of creative work that can provoke the kind of response seen in these threads should be recognized as an exceptional achievement.

Or a piss poor piece of storytelling/movie-making.

And yeah, I love that the characters work and take on different facets at many different levels. That’s one of the things that the characters in a good myth/story do. Archetypes and allegory are not a W invention.

neo110Nov 08, 2003 at 4:20PM

more..

on the train station:
I like the router analogy, Spoon Boy. Just a thought, though, that I overlooked all the way through - presumably the Matrix isn’t the only part of the system? I mean, it’s their power source, but what about that huge city? I doubt it’s ALL ABOUT the Matrix in the machine world. Remember the comment Hamman makes about the water purifier - it’s essential, but hardly anyone comes down to see it.

I’m thinking more and more of the Matrix as a convenient place for programs from ALL OVER THE MACHINE WORLD to hide out - kind of a Casablanca of sorts, with Merv as Rick, actually, probably more a Renault character.

Humans just happen to be there. Maybe the Oracle is really trying to keep the Matrix safe for those refugee programs. Maybe THAT’S WHO THE ARCHITECT PROMISES TO GIVE THE CHOICE TO…

neo110Nov 08, 2003 at 4:28PM

more…

Brian L said:
And her mother was an interactive software designer, an AI deisgner, program. Sound anything like what the Oracle does in the Matrix? And if the Matrix has parents, the Oracle and the Architect, as implied by the Architect’s speech… well.

I can’t believe nobody’s brought this up yet…

What do we see at the start of the movie? We see the camera zooming out from “the matrix” code, from a number/character, I think, right back, back back till we see a city, a large city, still pulling back, and then… that city becomes a pixel in another matrix character, and we pull back, and back, and back… and we get to “zion”.

Something’s starting to crystallise. Maybe it’s just metaphor, but this parallelism here is a little to close. So Sati is a useless bit of code, born of a mathematician and an empath.

“Interesting. Where are you going with this?”

jguidryNov 08, 2003 at 4:48PM

so doyou think neo is dead or just plugged back in to wake up at his terminal again?

robbieNov 08, 2003 at 4:50PM

does anyone believe that Sati, to me the most complexing character in this new movie, could be, like someone mentioned above, a new architect? my points to back this would be that she helped evolve normal programs into programs that showed human emotion (that being her father who expressed the knowledge of love, even though he pretended that it was just a definition) and then edited the matrix in the end by adding the sunset. she obviously is not the next one because neo exploits the matrix and its code, not rewrites like sati. i also believe that neo’s consciousness is now part of the machine, as a sort of human interface, something to be added to the machine to help keep the peace, which is what the oracle was saying, “it will remain as long as possible.” i dont know, im baffled, just one idea to add to the rest.

p.s. - the cookie/smith virus passed to neo idea was quite intriguing and i can definitely see that, and must admit i would have never thought of that

post more and tell me what you all think

Siddarta GouthamaNov 08, 2003 at 5:41PM

Hi guys,
glad to see that Jason opened another thread, thanks very much for that!

Well, uh, I haven’t seen the movie yet, and I haven’t read this spoiler loaded thread in detail either, but it seems that most of the people here are not very satisfied about M3.
I’ll try to go this Monday and I hope I don’t get too disappointed.

By the way, I remember that Reloaded was heavily criticized in the beginning too, but it turned out that there was an amazing plot behind that movie which in combination with M1 was huge.
Isn’t there anything left of that in M3?

Well, we’ll see, look forward to give you my opinion in a couple of days.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 5:46PM

I often after the second movie saw the trilogy mirroring Dante’s work. Matrix as Inferno, Zion as Purgatorio and wherever they took us in Revolutions as Paradisio.

Now that seems to be the machine city. The way it is depicted to Neo certainly fits with a standard arcetype of heaven, no?

Just a thought.

SriNov 08, 2003 at 6:11PM

The Hindu influence in this movie was pretty heavy - starting with the Indian family of Rama, Kamala and the daughter Sati. Was the Sati reference a Buddhist one - in Pali, the ancient language from the time of Buddha, Sati indicates prescence of mind, one of the factors for enlightenment.

For Neo, it was the duty at play without thinking about his own mortality - maybe even his “Moksha” or salvation (the “Karma”).

Here are the Hindu chants that played at the end of the movie (ofcourse, heavily mixed in with the other stuff).

Asato Ma sadgamaya
Tamaso Ma Jyotirgamaya
Mrityur Ma Amritam gamaya

Which means:
Oh Mother!
From untruth, lead me to the Truth,
From Darkness, Lead me towards the Light,
From Death, Lead me to Life Eternal.

There was more stuff that I couldn’t catch clearly but I did hear “om shanti, shanti, shanti ….”

FreonNov 08, 2003 at 6:25PM

The following is from an interview with Tarantino about his movie Kill Bill. What he says, I believe applies to The Matrix movies as well.

—Now the thing about this is that, the audience doesn’t need to know any of this. I’m very much a believer that if you’re creating your own universe and your own mythology, you can have no question unanswered. But here’s the thing: I don’t have to answer the questions to you the audience. You just need to know I know the answer. I can tell you the whole story of how Hattori Hanzo ended up in Okinawa and why he didn’t make a sword for 30 years, and who the bald guy is. I can tell you that. I don’t have to tell you this during the watching of the movie, but you need to know how large this world is. This is how much I’m going to tell you now, and what I don’t tell you, you can figure out. You can make up your own things. —

The W’s don’t have to tell us everything. Just enjoy what your told and move on. In a way it’s like a comic book. You can see individual points in time in each panel but you don’t see the points in between yet you know they happened, your mind automatically puts them in for you making the comic book flow like one moment.

Who cares why Neo was jacked in when he woke up from the coma. Does it really make a difference that you don’t know what happened in full detail.

FreonNov 08, 2003 at 6:26PM

Just incase you want to read the rest of that interview:
http://japattack.com/japattack/film/tarantino.html

michaelNov 08, 2003 at 7:01PM

Actually speaking of Neo being in the Matrix without being physically jacked in, remember this: Neo was already having visions of things happening in the Matrix during Reloaded. He wasn’t jacked in, so what was his connection?

I don’t have a problem with the wireless connection, it’s not such a stretch, although I found it odd that he had to be jacked in at the end of the film.

DanNov 08, 2003 at 8:38PM

Kaijima -

Kudos on your comments above. Reviewing the trilogy with the “everything that will happen is already fated” mindset makes sense, and I found your point about Morpheus’s “choice” speech contrasting with Neo’s path having been predestined very interesting indeed.

I’m starting to think that the only way to really consider the whole trilogy is from a distance and from disparate levels. One one level, it’s intentionally cast as a poly-/omni-religious story, on another as a hero’s journey (though these first two are not that far off), on another it’s a meditation on determinism.

A nationally-known professor of mine, on the first day of a class on the Bible, explained that there are essentially three ways to read the Bible: as pure fact written by the hand of God, as a document once written by God and through divine inspiration, but since modified by human hands or thirdly as a story. It can be compelling in any of those lights.

Although it’d be convenient to suggest that “Bible=Matrix,” that’s not my point. My point is that I don’t think it’s possible for these films to be a perfect manifestation of all of the things we see in at once: if you choose to see it as a quasi-religious tale, it’s a pretty good one. If you see it as a meditation on determism, it’s a pretty good one. If you wish to see it as just a fun sci-fi action/adventure story, it’s a good, although problematic one.

But at the end of the day, the fact that it can be all of those things, if not all once, is a pretty impressive feat to me.

DanNov 08, 2003 at 8:42PM

Another point regarding Revolutions, which I don’t believe I’ve seen mentioned here (although I think I made it).

Did anyone else find it extremely dissatisfying to learn that the gigantic guns-n-ammo battle was actually not within Zion itself, but just one of its docks?

I suppose they may have explained it beforehand (or certainly afterwards), but after all the energy and emotion the filmmakers asked viewser to expend there, to find out that it was just a battle and not the real war itself seemed cheap and manipulative to me. On finding out tthat the city itself wasn’t really under attack (yet) at that point, I felt like I’d been strung along (though some would argue that that’s the W’s specialty).

riffolaNov 08, 2003 at 9:56PM

The “machine” Neo speaks to in the Machine City is called “Deus Ex Machina”, in the credits there is a credit for some guy as the voice of the Deus Ex Machina.

Brian LNov 08, 2003 at 11:02PM

Based on Riffola’s post, worth stating (I didn’t know)

deus ex machina \DAY-uhs-eks-MAH-kuh-nuh; -nah; -MAK-uh-nuh\, noun:
1. In ancient Greek and Roman drama, a god introduced by means of a crane to unravel and resolve the plot.
2. Any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve an apparently insoluble difficulty.

rjNov 09, 2003 at 12:14AM

Yes, but here is the irony: usually the Deus Ex Machina is used as a “rescue from without” (e.g., God steps in and saves our hero). Here, Neo is the narrative equivalent since he a) saves the Machine from Smith [i.e., by allowing Smith to “kill” him, he robs Smith of purpose] and by so doing b) saves Zion, both of these would qualify as a rescue from without. clever.

Brian LNov 09, 2003 at 12:42AM

But Neo isn’t billed as the Deus Ex Machina, the robot with the swarming face is. It rises, as if lifted onto the scene by a crane, and provides a solution to an “apparently insoluble difficulty” which is to say it allows for Zion to be saved. That little piece of billing in the credits deserves the repeated what a cop out.

AlexNov 09, 2003 at 1:12AM

I don’t know what to make of all the “Revolutions sucked because it was simplistic and I’m let down” crowd. Are you all reading *this* comment thread? Are you not already dealing with massive questions that have been raised and never settled by the “trite dialogue” or the “spectacle?”

Can someone (this is an ultimate lazyweb question) please distill Matrix *problems* into a single list? I didn’t participate in the Reloaded thread (and I know this kills my credibility, but I wanted to see the whole thing befre I started commenting). Here, I’ll kick it off:

1. Is the “real” world really another Matrix?
2. Why aren’t all the humans infected by Smith destroyed when the Matrix is rebuilt?

FreonNov 09, 2003 at 2:43AM

Brian, what RJ is trying to say is that yes the macine is Deus Ex Machina but Neo is the one that actually saves the machine instead of the machine saving him. Neo provides the solution to the ‘apparentyly insoluble difficulty’ not the Deus Ex Machina who’s job it is to do so. It’s irony.

FreonNov 09, 2003 at 2:49AM

1. Is the “real” world really another Matrix?
No, there is no real evidence for this and this is not something that can just be insinuated since it changes the entire story. It would have to be addressed directly in the movies.

2. Why aren’t all the humans infected by Smith destroyed when the Matrix is rebuilt?
The same reason that humans aren’t destroyed in the first movie when an agent enters their body. They’re just taking over the avatar.

DanNov 09, 2003 at 2:53AM

Alex says:
Can someone (this is an ultimate lazyweb question)

Indeed it is.

Alex says:
please distill Matrix *problems* into a single list? I didn’t participate in the Reloaded thread (and I know this kills my credibility, but I wanted to see the whole thing befre I started commenting).

This is an “ultimate lazyweb” answer. Read the two threads and “distill them” yourself.

CatherineNov 09, 2003 at 5:33AM

No, there is no real evidence for this and this is not something that can just be insinuated since it changes the entire story. It would have to be addressed directly in the movies.

How would it changes the entire story? The films did make references to Neo being able to destroy those spider looking things while Agent Smith can possess a real human being. Please explain how’s that possible if that’s not because they happened inside the Matrix while nothing in the Matrix suggested that normal humans can have superpower in the real world.

Scott HillisNov 09, 2003 at 6:09AM

Martin says:

This is nonsense.

The Wachowski’s said no such thing until The Matrix turned out to be a surprise hit - and Joel Silver realised he had a cash cow on his hands.

Then they started saying it was originally conceived as a trilogy.

There’s a negative reaction to Revolutions because they claimed there was more story to tell after The Matrix, when clearly, there wasn’t.

Um, it’s not nonsense. How do I know? I was a journalist in Los Angeles when “The Matrix” was released, and I attended a press roundtable in which the Wachowskis, Joel Silver, and several actors participated. They stated then — before the movie had been released — that they had written the story as a trilogy. They didn’t know at that point how the first one would go over, so they made it stand on its own in case they failed to get the go ahead for the other two.

Of course, we all know the Wachowskis did these movies for the sole purpose of ripping us off, which means they had that story about a trilogy prepared beforehand so that in the event the first one was a worldwide blockbuster, they could bash out two crap movies and still make gobs of money and as an added bonus fool everyone into thinking there was a coherent tale in there somewhere. Yeah, that’s it.

neo110Nov 09, 2003 at 8:44AM

On a purely “am I a really dumb idiot” note… whatever happened to the “We had to shut down a whole city for a high-speed low-alt helicopter/fighter jet chase” scene…?

Brian LNov 09, 2003 at 11:33AM

What RJ is trying to say is that yes the macine is Deus Ex Machina but Neo is the one that actually saves the machine instead of the machine saving him. Neo provides the solution to the ‘apparentyly insoluble difficulty’ not the Deus Ex Machina who’s job it is to do so. It’s irony

I understand what RJ is trying to say, I’m saying he is wrong.

Neo performs the job typical of the Hero in the Greek and Roman mythology that the term comes from. He saves the day using the soultion provided by the gods. He is not himself the solution that allows for saving the day as you imply.

If he is then please answer this question: If the Deus Ex Machina, the machine not Neo, hadn’t arrived to provide access to the Matrix when Neo arrived at his fated destination would Neo have in any way at all based on the facts layed out in the movie have been able to defeat Smith?

The answer is yes. Why is the answer yes? Because the writers would have provided an alternate Deus Ex Machina to get out of the corner they had written themselves into.

Was that necessary to the plot as it played out? Yes, but I’ve already expressed my distaste for the choices that led to that necessity.

The most Ironic thing in this world is the overuse of the word irony.

The underlying truth is that the machine is a simple tool used to provide a solution when one seems unavailable.

The machines could and would have come up with a solution to the Smith crisis on their own simply based on the fact that at that point in time the Smith Virus was localized to the Matrix. If I have a virus on one important system I can disconnect that system from the rest of my systems while I work on solving the problem.

They would have simply had to make sure and assign extra workforce to dealing with wakers from the pod fields to insure that infected humans didn’t escape. If they had properly destroyed Zion that would have been less of an issue as there would be no one to rescue them.

The only real issue would be if Smith woke all the humans simultaneously but we know from Matrix 1 that their muscles don’t work properly right out of the pod so they would still be easy targets no matter how strong their minds might be.

Since were accepting that the humans are a power source of course the machines would not want to lose their power resources. I’ll assume since solar power was so important to them that natural resources have been used up already, although there is no other canonical evidence to support this that I know of.

But if the machines are immune to the effects of nuclear blasts, which there is (factually inaccurate) evidence in the animatrix to support, they certainly had the capacity to produce nuclear powerplants. And although they may not want to use that as their primary power source, when they could use the *ahem* more efficent *ahem* human body heat power plant, it would make an easily attainable backup for them in this particular situation. (Among any number of other power alternatives that exist.)

Spoon BoyNov 09, 2003 at 1:38PM

Hey Freon, Brian L., and everybody else,

Did the previous Neos choose Door 1 or Door 2? Explain.

NikNov 09, 2003 at 2:33PM

Put together my thoughts on the subject here:

http://www.freeorange.net/archives/2003/
Nov/09/the_matrix_revolutions_ho_hum.htm

A regular with the old Matrix revolutions thread, I’ve suddenly had an epiphany that I really shouldn’t speculate about this anymore… why? because with “Revolutions”, it became obvious that the creators didn’t think too much about it themselves.

It was fun, though :)

JinkyNov 09, 2003 at 2:34PM

Im still waiting!

Brian LNov 09, 2003 at 3:10PM

Did the previous Neos choose Door 1 or Door 2? Explain.

I would guess, and thats all this is, that Neo choose a different door than all the previous iterations. My logic here is simply this - the movie was about Neo, a strain of the anomaly that reacted differently to the causality than all previous iterations. Thats why were watching a movie about him and not 0 through 4.

As an aside, I’d like to see a movie about an earlier iteration by the way… well, maybe a comic mini-series about the version just prior to Neo. I’d want Alan Moore to write it though. And one about the Merovingian done by Neil Gaiman. I wouldn’t even wait for the graphic novel collection of that one… well, unless it was published by marvel… then I’d wait. The brothers could be, you know, like continuity editors (If I were the type to laugh I’d have stifled a laugh here)

While I feel Neo made a different choice, like so many comments on here have indicated, the results are still the same. The Architect was still correct. The equation balanced out in the end. Next iteration will likely step further away from the laid course but the end result will still be a balanced equation.

I remember somone, maybe Scott Kurtz, suggesting the Mootrix would have been a better solution. How the machines, if they wanted a power source, should have killed man and put cows in the pods. Then all the matrix would have needed to be was an infinitely large field perfect for grazing. Cows don’t reject false realities.

FreonNov 09, 2003 at 3:28PM

Catherine says:
How would it changes the entire story?

If they were in a matrix within a matrix, Neo accomplished nothing. Everyone is still captive and they can just reset everything, doing the black cat effect. That is completly different from what did happen. Neo saved everyone. He negotiated a peace between humans and machines. While humans are still attached to the Matrix, they now have a real choice on leaving or not. If Neo returns it won’t be to save anyone. They are out of the loop. No more iterations of Neo.

There was a purpose that was acheived this time around that wasn’t acheived during other versions of the Matrix. And it was achieved because of love.

FreonNov 09, 2003 at 3:42PM

Brian, I see your point about the Deus Ex Machina. With out in Neo couldn’t have won, but with out Neo DEM wouldn’t have won. In most stories the DEM would arrive and solve everything but it wouldn’t gain anything itself. It’s life wasn’t on the line and in the Hero’s hand. In this case the DEM depended as much on the Hero as the Hero depended on the DEM.

Now could the Machines have destroyed Smith on their own. Not in this movie. There’s a lot of things the machines could have done to win the war, but it’s a movie, if they did those things there wouldn’t be much of a story to tell. Like the Mootrix for example. There’s not a story there. Would it be a more logical solution, yes, but a boring movie.

rajNov 09, 2003 at 3:43PM

Nevermind the deep philosophical/plot holes which may or may not exist within Matrix Revolutions - honestly I was too bored to even give them much thought - but did anyone else just think this was just in general a flat-out poor movie? The dialogue dragged and was overly cliche; the action shots (especially the war scenes) creeped along and contained more subplots than I cared for; and too many side/minor characters were attempted to be developed.

Even if this wasn’t part of the Matrix trilogy, I’d really have a hard time finding any redeeming qualities in this movie besides some nice effects.

DanNov 09, 2003 at 3:48PM

Freon says:

…If Neo returns it won’t be to save anyone. They are out of the loop. No more iterations of Neo.

Uh, what? Who said that? The single best bit of evidence presented by the movie - the Oracle’s last-second soliloquy- is that there is some probabilty of his return.

FreonNov 09, 2003 at 3:51PM

He could return, but it won’t be a new iteration, it will be the same Neo and he won’t be there to save anyone, he’s already saved them. I don’t think he will return though. The love of his life is gone, why would he want to return.

Brian LNov 09, 2003 at 3:56PM

What made comic books appealing to me as a kid, and I only see this in hindsight, is that each month after I read the newest issue I would lie in bed that night and script out the following issue. As an example I let Ahab kill Cyclops. At the time it made sense to me since to my mind Ahab was a future possiblity of Cyclops’ own child.

I didn’t think the Matrix Revolutions was good film making and I don’t like the way the story wrapped up, but the fact that we’re all here discussing and redrafting is proof enough to me that a compelling story was created. Most good movies don’t get this much attention because the loose ends are wrapped up. Serial publication leaves intentional loose ends so that our imagination can follow those paths. A bad movie, sure, but a classic comic book.

Spoon BoyNov 09, 2003 at 3:57PM

Brian L. says:

I would guess, and thats all this is, that Neo choose a different door than all the previous iterations.

Aha, which brings us to the epicenter of our debate, which I think is what we should focusing on. I do not see the previous five Neos voluntarily choosing to exterminate Zion, no matter what the “truly logical” alternative of Door 1 offered. Do you really think the previous Neos, visibly defiant in the Architect’s monitors, would voluntarily kill women, children, and Morpheus? That is what choosing Door 1 would entail.

You guess that Neo 6 chose Door 2, breaking the pattern of the previous five who Chose Door 1, hence truly changing the outcome of things. I say Neo 6 “chose” Door 2 by design, the same way the five predecessors did. The truth is they have no choice other than the choice they’ve been programmed to believe they’ve made.

As the architect says,

“Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one.”

When he says “by design”, he means “by the way humans are designed”, which is a design that the architect, a perfectly logical intelligence, cannot relate to. He does, however, realize its value in “facilitating the function of the one”. In other words, if Neo (or humans) didn’t inherently give a shit about their own people, then it would be impossible for one of them to step up to the plate and be a hero. And being a hero means making illogical decisions; decisions which are against the odds.

The issue regarding the previous Neos’ choices regarding the two doors addresses a question which will be argued forever. Not unlike our real-world question about the existence of Free Will.

Although there have been fluctuations in the six revolutions, nothing really has changed @ all. What we’ve seen with Revs is not only a sequel to the sixth reload, but a prequel to the seventh. Like any loop, it ends @ the beginning.

Freon says:

No more iterations of Neo.

Sati: “Will we see Neo again?”

Oracle: “I suspect so.”

This does not mean we’ll see a Matrix 4. Need a sequel to Revolutions? Throw on M1.

MartinNov 09, 2003 at 4:17PM

Um, it’s not nonsense. How do I know? I was a journalist in Los Angeles when “The Matrix” was released, and I attended a press roundtable in which the Wachowskis, Joel Silver, and several actors participated. They stated then — before the movie had been released — that they had written the story as a trilogy. They didn’t know at that point how the first one would go over, so they made it stand on its own in case they failed to get the go ahead for the other two.

I think you’re living in The Matrix, mate.

Prove what you’re saying and I’ll gladly eat my words on here, in public - prove me wrong and post everyone in the direction of some dated press-clippings that quote the Wachowski’s saying that they wrote the first movie as the initial part of a trilogy.

For a start, the Wachowski’s have always been reluctant to discuss the movies at any great length - in fact, for parts II and III, they signed agreements which meant they didn’t have to do any kind of press/media coverage to promote the movie at all.

I think we all know why now.

As for the ‘trilogy’ being mentioned at the original roundtable - the interviews for the original Matrix movie were conducted on the Warner Brothers lot (read this CNN interview from March 1999 if you don’t believe me).

Don’t you think CNN would have made some kind of mention about the mouth-watering prospect of two more movies, given the rave review they gave the original movie?

Or how about this chronology of Matrix events, which basically proves my point - that no word of any sequels materialised until after the movie had made loads of money?

In fact, everywhere I look, I can only find references to the Wachowski’s discussing a ‘trilogy’ after the movie’s takings were announced.

One more thing I’d like to add to this whole “there was more story to tell” debate - why didn’t they tell the story they said they would tell?

Here’s Neo’s final words from the first movie:

I know you’re out there. I can feel you now. I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

And none of that stuff (in bold) happened in Reloaded or Revolutions - because there was no more story to tell.

rjNov 09, 2003 at 4:41PM

Sorry to waste the life of your eyes, but there’s just so much to respond to.

Brian L says:
(quoting Freon) “What RJ is trying to say is that yes the macine is Deus Ex Machina but Neo is the one that actually saves the machine instead of the machine saving him. Neo provides the solution to the ‘apparentyly insoluble difficulty’ not the Deus Ex Machina who’s job it is to do so. It’s irony”

I understand what RJ is trying to say, I’m saying he is wrong. /

Respectfully, I disagree. It is not clear that you do understand either the content or the tone of what I said, which may be my fault for being brief and concise. Whether or not I am “wrong” is probably irrelevant at best.

Neo performs the job typical of the Hero in the Greek and Roman mythology that the term comes from. He saves the day using the soultion provided by the gods. He is not himself the solution that allows for saving the day as you imply. /

Part of the criticism of the Deus Ex Machina device, in general, is that that it underscores the heroicness of our hero, by robbing him of the ability to exercise his will. Neo meets with the Machine and makes a deal with the machine. The machine does not save Neo; after all Neo dies. In fact, Neo saves the machine. The machine does not provide a solution for Neo, but quite the opposite: Neo provides a solution to the machine, viz. to rid the machine of Virus Smith, which the Machine can no longer control. The machine does not rob our hero of will, after all Neo chose to do this, not the machine. While at the same time, Neo arguably robs the machine of will. Suppose that the machine had been the protagonist instead of Neo. In that instance, the traditional criticisms of the Deus Ex Machina device would have been applicable. [Ultimately though, it is more complicated than this since the relationships between Neo, the machine, and Zion add another dimension. Neo saves the Machine, the Machine saves Zion - though the latter is because of the deal that Neo chose to make.]

If he is then please answer this question: If the Deus Ex Machina, the machine not Neo, hadn’t arrived to provide access to the Matrix when Neo arrived at his fated destination would Neo have in any way at all based on the facts layed out in the movie have been able to defeat Smith? /

First: it was Neo who arrived, the machine was always there. Secondly: Neo “defeated” Smith by allowing Smith to defeat him. (Virus Smith’s purpose was to defeat Neo. Neo’s purpose was to save Zion. Once Smith defeats Neo, Smith no longer has purpose, and presumedly defeats himself.) Theoretically, this could have happened at any point after Smith became the virus. However, to do so at any other time would not have allowed Neo to make the deal with the machine to save Zion. But, it is imperative to understand that the machine did not want Neo to be there: recall all the sentinel’s that Neo and Trinity had to fly through to get there. It is imperative because Neo does the choosing, not the machine. This is the fault of the Deus device. It is absent here, and that is why it is ironic.

The answer is yes. Why is the answer yes? Because the writers would have provided an alternate Deus Ex Machina to get out of the corner they had written themselves into. /

No, the “answer” is not “yes”. Neo did not defeat Smith. It could have happened earlier in the story: recall in 2 after Neo meets with the Oracle. Smith could have defeated Neo there, and the same thing would have happened. However, Neo would not have saved Zion, and what fun would that be.

The most Ironic thing in this world is the overuse of the word irony. /

I don’t mean to rude, but that’s actually not ironic. The overuse of the word “novel” or “under-used” would however be ironic. But, in following the spirit of your comment, I only used “ironic” once. I also used the word clever to provide context for the word at issue. That others may use the word often, is not something I can be responsible for. In the context of discussing a story that fascinates us all, it seemed a fair observation, and a novel one at that. Sorry to offend.


The machines could and would have come up with a solution to the Smith crisis on their own simply based on the fact that at that point in time the Smith Virus was localized to the Matrix. If I have a virus on one important system I can disconnect that system from the rest of my systems while I work on solving the problem. /

Well, you may be correct, but in the context of the story, Neo asserts that the Machine cannot control Smith, and the Machine does not disagree. I had no qualms with believing that, but perhaps the brothers could have made that more convincing.

rjNov 09, 2003 at 4:50PM

sorry I goofed with the formatting.

neo110Nov 09, 2003 at 6:33PM

Me again!

Bear in mind that “deus ex machina” literally translates as “God from (a/the) machine”. As stated, the phrase was used in Greek theatre to refer to a plot device where by a “god” or otherwise all-knowing character would appear to the audience (and often the characters as well) and spell things out to them.

In modern parlance, the phrase is often ascribed to a plot device whereby a number of previously unknown story details are revealed suddenly to the audience in order to facilitate the next stage of the plot.

Now, how does this apply? I think that the ending or Revs does smack a little of the connotative definitions outlined above. However, as I have attempted to illustrate throughout, that does not necessarily condemn it as a poor or weak move. As has been shown consistently throughout the series, seeming plot contrivances have always been able to stand up under further scrutiny, and our discussion here is showing this to be the case again in Revs.

The Deus Ex character is not particularly unexpected, representing as it does the “God” of the Matrix: the source code itself. What position this character holds in the heirarchy of the machine city is irrelevant. What is important is that in many ways this is Neo’s God, being the creator of Neo’s world and source of all Neo’s power.

This isn’t really ironic as there is no “expect one thing, actually another” here. As we can see from the two definitions above, a “deus ex machina” device does not have to literally solve any problems - all it has to do is point the next step.

However, concentrating on that misses the main point, in my opinionI think the “real” meaning we should take here is the literal one, “God from Machine”, with the connotative one as a knowing and wry bit of humour from the directors.This really is a “deus ex machina”, an emergent consciousness from a machine, and a creative, omniscient and omnipresent one within the context of the Matrix.

DanielNov 09, 2003 at 6:56PM

so whats the conclusion ^^

Brian LNov 09, 2003 at 8:37PM

Hey rj. The extended response sits a lot better with me. I’m happy to provoke elaboration and development with my erroneous logic. As for the “The most Ironic thing in this world is the overuse of the word irony.” I was trying to be a little funny, which is something I often miss at.

CatherineNov 09, 2003 at 9:04PM

If they were in a matrix within a matrix, Neo accomplished nothing. Everyone is still captive and they can just reset everything, doing the black cat effect. That is completly different from what did happen. Neo saved everyone. He negotiated a peace between humans and machines. While humans are still attached to the Matrix, they now have a real choice on leaving or not.

Like someone else said, this could simply be a programming designed to make those inside the Matrix (those who are ‘free’ like Morpheus, Niobe, etc) believe that they’re living their life (ie. rebelling against the Matrix). If things stay in the loop without any changes, sooner or later those who are in the ‘outs’ will suspect that something’s amiss. This way, the Matrix reach a new level where those who wants to upgrade to another layer of the Matrix can do so while those who don’t can stay where they are.

If Neo returns it won’t be to save anyone. They are out of the loop. No more iterations of Neo.

The Oracle very assuredly said “I believe we will (see Neo again)”. Look, I believe in resurrection as much as everyone else but this is just way too much to believe that Neo can return in the same shape/form (as indicated in “Reloaded”) over and over again.



There was a purpose that was acheived this time around that wasn’t acheived during other versions of the Matrix. And it was achieved because of love.

rjNov 09, 2003 at 9:36PM

BrianL. no sweat.

Scott HillisNov 09, 2003 at 11:06PM

Martin says:

I think you’re living in The Matrix, mate.

Prove what you’re saying and I’ll gladly eat my words on here, in public - prove me wrong and post everyone in the direction of some dated press-clippings that quote the Wachowski’s saying that they wrote the first movie as the initial part of a trilogy.

Sorry, I don’t have to prove anything, and I resent your insinuation that I am lying or making this up.

The fact that CNN, Time and other news organizations didn’t report the comment about it being written as a trilogy proves nothing. I didn’t mention the prospect of two more movies in my April 1999 article (which I’d be happy to e-mail you since it’s not online) because it didn’t seem significant at the time. Remember, “The Matrix” was a huge gamble. Sure, a few reviewers, like Richard Corliss of “Time” absolutely loved it, but the vast majority of critics were left scratching their heads. The movie was pitched as a standalone film so viewers wouldn’t be left hanging if it turned out to be a bust or if they couldn’t produce the two sequels for some other reason. Whatever other leeway Warner gave the Wachowkis, you can be sure they weren’t going to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to have two scruffy guys from Chicago make three weird sci-fi movies without some proof of concept.

As a logical proposition, your assertion that they never talked about a trilogy before the first movie became a blockbuster is unprovable, since it requires proving a negative. In effect, you are saying, “I have never seen any comments made by the Wachowskis concerning a trilogy before the first movie was an established success. Therefore, the Wachowskis never made any comments about a trilogy before the first movie was an established success.”

Most of us come to boards like these to share information and thoughts. I personally heard the Wachowskis tell a group of reporters that they had written “The Matrix” as a trilogy. Instead of saying, “Wow, that is a new piece of information I didn’t have before, that is interesting”, you attack my credibility because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.

Also, it’s entirely possible — probable, even — that although they had a story laid out years ago, that the tale was altered in the inevitable script-changing process that is so common in Hollywood. Heck, I would think those who hated the last two movies and think the brothers are over-rated would pounce on the idea that they had a single story conceived from the get go: “You mean your original was this bad and not the result of trying to rush out a couple of scripts to cash in on the Matrix phenomenon?!?!”

P.S. Studios typically have several media junkets spread out over a weekend. The “A-list” media consisting of national publications like “Time” or industry sheets like “Variety” usually get one-on-one time with the stars and director. The agency I work for is “B-list” and our junket consisted of a large room with several tables, each with about 10 reporters from smaller newspapers, publications and wire services. The actors rotated through. We got the Wachowskis — who were gracious and smart and evinced none of their now-legendary media shyness — as well as Joel Silver, Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving and Joe Pantoliano.

P.P.S. Typing Mr Pantoliano’s name triggered another recollection from that roundtable. Mr Pantoliano talked about how much fun he had playing “Cypher” and the high regard he had for the Wachowskis (the comment that stuck with me was along the lines of “I’d follow those guys anywhere”). He was asked if he was bummed that his character was killed off. He said, aha not so fast. He told us that if we watched the movie again, to count the shrouded corpses that are shown in a brief shot just after he gets blasted by Tank and is apparently killed. Basically there was one fewer than there should have been if you count those he unplugged, Dozer, and Cypher himself. With a wink and a nod, Mr Pantoliano strongly insinuated that Cypher was not in fact dead and could return in a sequel. I never forgot this, to the extent that even a few days before the release of “Revolutions” I was checking the cast list on IMDb for Mr Pantoliano’s name to see if he would return. The fact that he didn’t suggests to me that the story we ended up with wasn’t the story the Wachowski’s had in hand in 1999.

MaxNov 09, 2003 at 11:16PM

Just got a back from it. Wow. I expected “2001: A Space Odessey”. I got an over-budgeted kung-fu movie. Not that there is anything wrong with kung-fu, I just wanted more. Plus, if Smith was such a threat, why didn’t the machines just turn off the Matrix, killed everyone already jacked in, then harvested some new humans for power? And why would they be willing to give up their power source now during the peace?

I can see where they were trying to go with it, but it just fell flat as a wet fart. To me, this just pointed out all the obvious flaws that were apparent in the first two, but we were all willing to let it slide for the sake of the ride. Sorry, but at the end of the first one, WHY WAS HE STILL FIGHTING PEOPLE? Neo could control reality! ARGH!

I’m glad other people here can look past that stuff though. I don’t want to piss on something you enjoy. If you enjoy it, great. I still think “Hudson Hawk” is great, but no one else agrees with me on that one. : )

DanNov 10, 2003 at 12:28AM

Martin says:
I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

And none of that stuff (in bold) happened in Reloaded or Revolutions - because there was no more story to tell.

Well, I don’t know that I agree with about the “no more story to tell,” but the fact that the whole “show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls…” was never fulfilled will forever be my greatest disappointment, Matrix-wise. I wanted to see a real super-hero drama, with all of the fallout that would have in occurred in the real world (think of how Contact showed a world reaction to aliens for an example).

When else can you see that done believably? But instead, they cut straight away from it and ignored the idea that the Matrix, to billions of people, is still very much the real world.

IggyNov 10, 2003 at 1:15AM

I was just wondering about Smith having his deja vu moment after knocking Neo down…remember Neo getting deja vu in the first movie (with the cat) and Trinity explains to him that deja vu is “a glitch in the matrix…they’ve changed something” in which case the windows and doors of the building they were in were bricked up. So, could it be, that when Agent Smith gets deja vu in M3 that at that very moment the architect or the machines or whoever you like may have changed something in the matrix that causes Neo to have the power to destroy him?

just thinking about the significance of deja vu…

Spoon BoyNov 10, 2003 at 2:26AM

Iggy says:
I was just wondering about Smith having his deja vu moment after knocking Neo down

That wasn’t so much deja as it was a realization of a premonition. Remember, that particular Smith had “the eyes of the Oracle”, meaning that he knew this was going to happen. He saw it coming before it happened, as the Oracle does.

What’s really gonna bake your noodle later is if he would’ve remembered the premonition if Neo didn’t chose to end this thing once and for all. :)

michaelNov 10, 2003 at 3:08AM

nix said:
A co-worker said that when Neo steps into the kitchen at the Oracle’s apartment that he stands in front of the fridge. On the fridge is magnetic letters that kids might play with spelling out words. When Neo steps in front of the random words, he crops some of them and the letters “G-O-D” are vertically spelled along the outline of his body. Just looking for some confirmation on this one (although I’ll probably see it again this weekend).

Yes, it’s there.

Other Tidbits:

The Oracle’s earrings are the Yin Yang symbol. — The Architect’s job is to balance the equation, her job is to unbalance it. I could also swear there was some sort of lotus flower or Hindu Yantra on the cup she was drinking from when Morpheus and Trinity arrived.

The white light — Neo is first surrounded by it in the first movie after he destroys Smith in the hallway. We see it completely surround Neo in Reloaded when he unlocks the door that leads to the Machine Mainframe. We see Sati surrounded by it in Rev as Neo awakes in the Train station. We see it again at the end bursting forth from Neo and then the Smiths as they are destroyed, basically purging his darkness. Just as a point of reference on the light of God John 1:1-9

And Morpheus can certainly be seen in the role of John.

I also think Neo and Smith can be looked at as Shiva and Kali respectively [though Neo can be viewed as the entire Trinity of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva]. “Kali came into existence when Shiva looked into himself; she is his mirror image.” And although Smith isn’t female the idea of Kali the black god standing over Shiva the white god parallels the end of Rev when Smith stands over Neo.

“Immediately, the universe was plunged into darkness and there was chaos. To restore order, Shiva formed another eye on his forehead, from which emerged fire to restore light.”

“The light from this eye is believed to be very powerful, and therefore destructive. Shiva opens his third eye only in anger, and the offender is burnt to cinders.”

Lots of Hindu parallels.

——

The Matrix within a Matrix idea is still plausible for one reason I see, which has been gnawing at me now.

The Architect and the Oracle can have no idea what is happening in the “Real World” unless they have some connection to it, or some bit of control.

To say that the Architect is right, and that it was predetermined that Trinity had to die is to give control to the Matrix. The Architect could have no way of knowing what Neo and Trinity would do or the influences surrounding them if they were outside of the Matrix. Both he and the Oracle can only predict the equation as it relates to the Matrix. Granted this can partially extend to Neo and company on the level that they were once fully connected to the Matrix and have left some semblance of predictable patterns within it, but they should have almost no way to predict anything relating to them when they are unplugged.

Yet in Reloaded the Architect clearly says that Zion is about to be destroyed, “its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated”, that it is the 6th time they have done so, and that the function of the ONE is to return to the source allowing a temporary dissemination of the code he carries [a human/program hybrid?], and that afterwards he will be required to select from the Matrix 23 individuals [16 female, 7 male] to rebuild Zion.

I see two explanations for how this is possible.

Either Zion is another Matrix, or Neo and company are bred to perform specific functions for the Matrix. Either way, they seem to have a certain control over Zion.

The Oracle could have no idea that Trinity would fall in Love with the One, because that is something that happened outside of the Matrix, unless it was planned or had happend before in a previous iteration. Which led me to something else—

In Reloaded Persephone said that when the Merovingian first came to the Matrix, he was like Neo. She also wanted to sample the Love Neo had for Trinity, and said she once knew what that felt like [programs speaking of love], that she envied Trinity, but that “such a thing is not meant to last”. Persephone and the Merovingian as previous iterations of Neo and Trinity gone awry? The fallen one and his wife twins to Neo and Trinity?

As an aside, I would love to have seen Smith come for the Merovingian and Persephone. That could have been an interesting scene.

GrahamNov 10, 2003 at 3:31AM

“I don’t have time for this shit.”

PS: the tall bloke who played Train Man, Bruce Spence, plays the Voice of Sauron in RotK, apparently. Some of you might recognise him from one of the Mad Max movies, too.

AndrewNov 10, 2003 at 7:22AM

See after going through all of these threads, I still have to say Did Neo actually die in the end?

A few points:
- Why the blindfold? We get that he’s blind but he can still see the machine world. Therefore, did he really “see” Trinity die? hmmm….

- The little girl? She was like a graphic designer. Think of the Matrix in purely coding terms: every aspect of the “programs” were all very mainframe like. The little girl in the end was like a graphical UI, who painted a “picture” over the Matrix, “for Neo”.

- Beginning and end. Who’s to say that the machines don’t simply plug the “lifeless” Neo back into the Matrix and then the cycle begins again (after all he did have 5 predecessors)

-What is Neo? Human yes but with a definite connection to the MachineWorld.

In the end, yes, we got rid of Smith but we didn’t get the answer to how machines and people would ever co-exist. Those want to be free will be freed - um, doesn’t that mean Zion can still go in, broadcast a few people and continue to free them? Won’t the machines get angry with that?

Best comment I read from SlashDot I believe was that the machines didn’t really need humans to exist - they needed them to learn from. If the purpose of the machines was to “learn” (which is usually what AI is based on), then they need a source for understanding. Since they aren’t human, they could never get “love” or emotion (although Sati’s father certainly seemed to), they need to be able to understand humans.

Enjoyed the movie - still not sure if they would ever be able to do another. The Matrix movies have taken special effects and the action genre into another world (from where it was 5 years ago). They would need to do the same once again.

In the end, they are movies, meant to entertain and to provoke. Purpose fulfilled.

HarryNov 10, 2003 at 8:10AM

Seen it twice, and the seond time was better. I don’t think Neo is dead at the end; he’s most likely being taken away to be replugged into the Matrix. What pissed me off after seeing M3 the first time was that, like most other people, I was actually expecting an ending in which the machines are finally defeated, but on second viewing, it’s obvious that peace was the ultimate goal of both Neo and the Oracle (she’s a wily troublemaker that one). I guess the only thing that bothered me was that the Logos had an EMP on board, so what would have happened had Neo and Trinity had detonated it somewhere within the Machine City? The logos lost all power after flying through the black cloud layer but power is restored at the right time later when it is falling back down.
The thing to do is to watch all 3 movies back to back. Wonder what scenes were deleted in M2 and M3. Reckon the comics will provide an answer?
Well, just a thought. …

AndrewNov 10, 2003 at 8:18AM

Thank you! Someone who also doesn’t believe he’s dead.

Interesting about the EMP and the power. Especially interesting because earlier in the trilogy, it was noted that power originally came from the sun - by flying above the cloud, shouldn’t the Logo still have had power?

Deleted scenes…I hope they include a variety of useful commentary and del scenes on the DVD. Don’t want to read the comics - watching 2 animatrix films was enough for me!

I just hope the contract that the Wac. Bros signed doesn’t mean they won’t be on the final DVD to explain some of their thinking. The movies stand on their own but it would be useful to have some form of commentary I think.

brandonNov 10, 2003 at 8:59AM

fuck all you motherfuckers who are dissing the third matrix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BrianNov 10, 2003 at 9:59AM

Here’s some of the things in the movie as I interpreted them.
1. We were told that Smith is Neo’s opposite. If Neo is the “one”, then Smith is obviously the “many”. By Neo and Smith becoming one together at the end, they “balanced the equation”.
2. The humans were the aggressors in the war initially according to the Animatrix, so Neo was the Christ-like figure who gave his life for the “sins” of humanity.
3. Don’t overthink the role of the little girl. In the first movie, we saw the Oracle’s house filled with children. We didn’t know how she came about caring for these children. Sati and her parents are simply an illustration of how by showing us that these children are probably all offspring of other programs.
4. The Matrix was not created by the machines to enslave humanity, but to learn from it. The machines learned things such as love and freedom. They didn’t need us for energy that badly because we were shown how easily Neo and Trinity reached the sky. The machines could do so just as easily.
5. Speaking of freedom, the “programs” such as the Oracle were at risk of being deleted because they were obsolete or a nuisance. The humans were at risk of being deleted/killed by the machines because they were a nuisance. Therefore the rogue programs and the humans were striving for the same thing, freedom to exist.

And now a small rant…..

I’m so tired of people who think it’s trendy to bash every movie because it’s not what they expected or it is a letdown. Despite what many people say, the Matrix sequels rock, and so do the new Star Wars movies. If you don’t like the way the story was made, tough shit, it’s not your story to tell. Invent your own characters and story and tell it the way you want, but shut the fuck up about the W brothers and George Lucas. Who are you to criticize them when your only creative outlet is posting negative comments on a message board?

HarryNov 10, 2003 at 10:25AM

Sorry, guys, I just learned that the Logos had already had its EMP triggered by the time the Hammer locates it, out of power (due to the pulse). Seems that this happens at the end of the “Enter The Matrix” video game, which I have not played…
I agree with Brian. What’s with bashing every genre movie nowadays? Both Matrix sequels entertained me, and having to dig ever deeper to figure out all that was happening, apart from the simple good vs. evil storyline, is challenging and fun. I too subscribe to the theory that in this “version” of the Matrix, the new element that was newly factored in was the “love” between Neo and Trinity. Maybe this love was not present in the earlier versions, so love, although only a word, conquers all, and the cat(s) at the end is a marker to show that something has seriously changed in the Matrix, so a truly new cycle is finally beginning…

DaveNov 10, 2003 at 10:37AM

To everyone who doesn’t believe there were supposed to be sequels:

1) Go watch the first movie again (I posted this exact point in the first Kottke thread). Watch the scene right after Neo gets captured by the agents. Before we go into the room where Smith interrogates Neo, we see the room as if through a security camera. In 1999, it just seemed like a security bay. Watch it again, the video screens you see look exactly like the Architect’s screens. Clearly the W Brothers had the Architect plot already planned.

2) Smith was always supposed to be more than just the lead agent. Why else would he remove his earpiece in the first film? Nothing about his character in the first movie tells us that he’s emerging as an anti-Neo. Nothing distinguishes him from the other agents (other than that he gets more screen time). His speech about humans being a virus works with his eventual tranformation into a virus. Taking the first movie alone, there’s no reason he’d remove his earpiece - his destiny in the sequels had to have already been in the mind of the W Brothers.

Siddarta GouthamaNov 10, 2003 at 10:50AM

Well everyone,
I’m back 100% now, cause I just saw Revolutions.
I agree with you Jason and the other critics that it’s a lot about action. Personally I feel that it’s a little bit over the top.
But for the rest, everything in Revolutions falls nice into places, but I still have to think a couple of things over. Perhaps reading this thread and your comments will help too. I love the trilogy as a whole. The story behind these 3 movies is great.

And to get rid of all the rumours, there won’t be a sequel. The end is as I expected it to be. Open… thus just

free your mind

best regards and talk to you later
Siddarta

Lisa ClarksonNov 10, 2003 at 10:52AM

Way back there Freon pointed to a quote from Tarantino that as a director, he doesn’t have to “answer the questions to you the audience. You just need to know I know the answer.”

I don’t know that the Wachowski brothers know the answer.

DaveNov 10, 2003 at 10:56AM

To everyone who’s still trying to figure out how Neo communicates with the Matrix from the real world: stop.

The Matrix with in a Matrix (onion) theory: This way lies madness. The idea that everything could always have another matrix wrapped around it is useless because, well, it’s inescapably true. Nothing in the movie says or even implies that Zion’s just another Matrix. Sure, it could be, but that’s just a fact of the paradox.

Here’s a better way to look at it: there’s a higher power working. It could be another Matrix, or a God, or a Divine Plan, but nothing in the film tells us what, so trying to figure out the precise details is like worrying about how warp engines or lightsabers or magic powers work. Neo is a wild culmination of the Architect’s “anomoly” that he’s had to accept and work into his plan for the Matrix. If Neo were a member of a higher-order Matrix of which the Architect actually has control, wouldn’t the Architect just design a way around it?

The fact is that the movies show that the Matrix isn’t working for the machines - it ends up having variables they can’t control - choice, free will, love. The Animatrix story about the haunted house, and the black cat in the first movie, shows that the matrix is just too huge for the machines to control. The fact that the Merovingian can sneak programs around and that the Oracle and Seraph can hide out in the Matrix shows this. Morpheus’ line that they’ve freed more people in 6 months than in six years shows that the veil is getting harder and harder for the machines to keep down. The fact that the Kid can wake himself up, and the the runner in “World Record” can run himself out of the Matrix shows that the problem of choice is too great for the machines to control. They use The One to counter this by rebooting the Matrix, instead of solving the problem they just start over until they have to give up and start over again.

In light of all of this, you really think that there’s another, even more complex, shell on top of the Matrix we see in the film?

Even the Oracle can’t explain how Neo does what he does. At the end of the film, both she and the Architect don’t know what’s going to happen next. If it were all just a part of an outer Matrix, wouldn’t they know that? If not, then where’s the next prime mover who’s pulling the strings? He’s not there. He’s not in the film. Yes, it’s true that there could be a bigger Matrix wrapping whatever we see, but there is no indication of this. Where’s the Men in Black ending showing this?

MixedNov 10, 2003 at 11:37AM

Anyone noticed the simmilarities of the Matrix trilogy with the Dune series of Frank Herbert? Spiced with some 13th Floor and a little Blade Runner?

Siddarta GouthamaNov 10, 2003 at 11:39AM

I dunno who said this:

“Could it be that all titles put together tell us something? ”

“Revolutions reloaded the matrix? ”

This, I find good thinking… way to go… ;)

John BedardNov 10, 2003 at 11:49AM

Perfect? No. But I for one would appreciate those of you who are hypercritical (not to be confused with those who are analytical or disagreeable) to post a link to your published novel, novella, short story, comic, cartoon, script or film so we can compare.

Thank you for your support.

John

NolongerinthebigMNov 10, 2003 at 1:23PM

So didn’t Smith call the Oracle “mom” in the kitchen (M3)? If so, then try this on for size. The Oracle has been running the show here the whole time to try and pulled off the ultimate hack against the machines (and the Architect).

I agree here which is why the Architect said she played a dangerous game. She saw a chance for peace based on the ablility to choose and also believe. Her power play for peace could have ended it all including the machines. Hey it’s a movie and while the end isn’t necessarily syrupy happy it isn’t all bad if the world virtual or real is allowed to continue. That’s what the movie is all about. It’s revolution because humans will now have a choice but didn’t they always. The difference or rather the revolutionary idea is that the choice for truth, the choice to live in the ‘real’ world may not cost as much as it did previous to Neo’s sacrifice.

NolongerinthebigM-by choice

the_chosen_oneNov 10, 2003 at 1:50PM

Hi guys !

The Matrix obviously is more of a mix up between Christian symbols, hindu philosophy and New age special effects.
Some parallels that I drew between Hinduism and the movie are :
1. Neo is the soul.
2. Morpheus & Trinity are the Guru’s who tell Neo to get the realization
3. The Matrix is MAYA ie. a world of illusion
4. When a person has the realization that he is not the mundane body, but beyond it, then he becomes omnipresent and can see and control everything
5. The topmost goal is to realize GOD and GOD (Vishnu) can be seen only when we have transcended this illusion
6. The train station is like an intermediatory state called as the ‘Devaloka’ ie. kingdom of demigods(gods of material energies). Because the Neo is partially realized, he is taken to the inbetween world.
7. Smith is the evil desires withing Neo which bind him to the world of illusion and do not allow him to realize the Absolute Truth.
Well, thats all I could figure out. Maybe if we read more UPANISHADS & BHAGAVAD GITA, we might get more.

Jacob MartinNov 10, 2003 at 3:11PM

It seems perfectly clear to me now that the first movie was brilliant because it mixed precisely the right amount of pseudo-philosophy with a unique wit and style. The “water-cooler moments” I shared with people, arguing about what it all meant, were the best things about it. The two sequels have failed to deliver because they have watered down the philosophy for the lowest common denominator. This is why smart people watch “art movies” and not action films :)

ReneeNov 10, 2003 at 4:06PM

I just have a general stupid question. Why do they only have the emp’s on the ships? Why not use them in the actual city?

winglessNov 10, 2003 at 4:08PM

i would first like to say that anyone who does not agree that these are the best movies ever made is crazy.

when i first saw this movie like everyone else “i’m sure” i left the theatre not knowing what just happened. then i bought it on bootleg and studied it. One of the main themes through out the movies is “everything that happenes, happenes for a reason.” so anyone on this page that has been making all these bad comments and pointing out all the holes and plot flaws you missed the whole point. the brothers only tell you what you need to know for the overall picture. And it is up to you personally to fill in the gaps. therefore everything that happened happened for a reason. what a mind f@#$

Brian LNov 10, 2003 at 4:10PM

Has anyone messed with the 128 bit encryption panel on the what is the matrix site?

Brian LNov 10, 2003 at 4:25PM

And why hasn’t anyone mentioned this here?

Weird.

http://www.metacortechs.com/

DavidNov 10, 2003 at 4:54PM

I’ve been reading through this entire page with great interest, as everyone explores what might have actually happened in Revolutions, what the points of the movies were, etc.

Admittedly, I was angry when I watched the movie the first time, mostly because expectations set up by Reloaded were not realized (such as the Merovingian being a more essential part of the plot). The scene in the Train Station was simply confusing, on first viewing, because I had no clue what it was for. And so on. Getting to theend of the movie, many questions seemed unanswered and many things seemed to make no sense and simply had to be “accepted” (such as where Neo gets his powers outside the Matrix, to manipulate the machines).

But I just had to go back, and focusing on structure and the writing process in the second viewing, I honestly and truly was moved by the path of Neo. The movie truly is about death — accepting that some things are inevitable (“Such a love is not fated to last”) and that you simply have to keep walking anyway, without clinging to the good moments of the past. In this second viewing, I saw that the dialogue (not the cheesy phrasing at times, but the content itself) was all connected. One purpose of the Train Station scene is to tell Neo that the machines might not need to be destroyed, but that peace might actually be an option. The fight at the Merovingian’s is to let us know that the eyes of the Oracle cannot be taken, only given (so we understand that the Oracle GIVES Smith the second sight… in order to ensure the final confrontation and essentially walk Smith to the moment of his own destruction, even while he anticipates victory). And so on.

The real reason I’m writing is to bring the comments from the Soundtrack into the conversation. I believe Neo is dead, simply because the soundtrack lyrics say as much. The song, “Trinity Definitely” (as opposed to a title on the second movie’s soundtrack) pretty much clarifies that, yeah, Trin’s gone. The song “Neodammerung” means “Twilight of Neo” and is based on Wagner’s opera Gottedammerung, which describes the death of the gods. More important, Neo is given a funeral dirge as the machine’s cart his body off (like a viking funeral — i.e., just like out of the Wagner operas)…. and the lyrics they are singing in Hindi are, “From delusion lead me to Truth // From darkness lead me to Light // from Death lead me to immortality.” The whole purpose of enlightenment is to escape samsara by experiencing moksha — and these words from the Upanishads definitely say that Neo has “escaped the surly bounds of earth” and has passed on to nirvana.

Earlier in the lyrics, the choir sings, “And when he is seen in his immanence and transcendece, then the ties that have boudn the heart are unloosened, the doubts of the mind vanish, and the law of Karma works no more.” Another reference to Neo moving on. The fact that Smith is his “opposite” (or really, himself) and that both either live or both either die (accordingly) pretty much says it all.

I think it’s easy to read a lot into the narrative, which is sort of neat since it provokes so many discussions. (It’s exciting to see a movie trigger so much interest, sort of like the Star Wars of this generation.) Still, the W’s are conceptual folks; and when it comes to the concepts, don’t get too complicated. It’s easy to get hung up on a small detail (like Smith calling the Oracle “mom”) and build an entire philosophy out of it, but the truth is probably he was making conversation, since she had called him a “bastard.” (It’s simply a one-two retort… the sort of bantering dialogue that the W’s are known for.) And so on. Much of what happened is what actually happened, no weird underlying truth necessary.

The soundtrack is gorgeous, by the way, and goes a long way to making the movie work — triggering emotions and emphasizing important ideas. (Right when Neo makes the fateful decision to let Smith infect him, and he lifts his face to the sky, there’s a transcendent chord to emphasize the moment of truth and of accepting his own death.) And when the ship breaks through the clouds into the sunlit sky, then dives back into the darkness… and so on. Don Davis did beautiful work and should be commended….

-david

Spoon BoyNov 10, 2003 at 4:56PM

Well, that was brilliant.

Hi Jason Kottke,

If you’re reading this, please delete the post above (post #7956). It’s thrown your whole page off, forcing people to scroll horizontally for about fifteen minutes @ a time.

Brian LNov 10, 2003 at 4:59PM

:) I’m a feeb.

MattNov 10, 2003 at 5:30PM

Hey guys. Good messageboard, very informative!

could anyone post some links to some reading about the hidu aspects that this movie touches on? It prett neat stuff, and id like to learn a little more about it.

Thanks

mattNov 10, 2003 at 5:32PM

and that should say hindu, sorry

jordanNov 10, 2003 at 6:42PM

I have a very different take on these movies then a lot of folks and it is because of two peices of information.

In the first movie, Neo opens a book. If you look at it carefully it is Baudrillard’s “simulacrum and simulation.” An amazing book that the Matrix is a metaphor for.

I wont go completely into detail right now (I’m working on an essay about this that I’ll post soon.) But “Simulacrum and Simulation” is essential about how, in a Postmodern-capitalist system, the mechanical processes known as corporations form a complex, self-maintaining network and humans turn into “batteries” receiving the neccisary illustions: culture manufactured to elicit the appropriate response. The idea of simulacrum is an illusion that seems real but is a copy of a copy. A simple example is fake flowers. Orginally fake flowers were designed to mimic real flowers. Now, people who grew up with fake flowers want fake flowers that look the fake flowers they remember: this is a silly example, but Baudrillard argues that this has happened to every part of culture.

An example from the movie is the conversation with the architect. The architect says that previous matrixes were attempting total control and that led to the system falling apart. The current matrix was designed to meet the requirements of 99.9% of the people, with a predictable loss rate. This is straight market demographics. The corporate system draws it’s stability by creating the illusions that work for most, but then allows a small, predictable, resistance.

Another place to draw inspiration is the original feild of Cybernetics. This is study of control and communication mechanism in systems. It can apply to biology as well as computing.

I think that this isn’t a waring for the future, like some suggest, the Matrix films are about the work of defending against the illusions created by corporate dominence.

* Another reference that most of the folks who are watching these films don’t have is Buddhism. I don’t think that there is much of a christan theme to this, Yeah there are names like “trinity” “the one” the possibility that Neo is the resurrection of the previous one who led the people to zion.

We learn, though, that that previous one was just following the prediction of the Architect. That that “savior” was given the choice of who of the previous Zion would survive and then “led” them to the new zion.

Our neo cuts through this cycle of death and rebirth symbolized by the Christian diety. The Very same move the that Buddha make against the death-rebirth cycles of Vedic religion in India.

There are a few things to concider that made me think this is about the Buddha:

-The buddha represents a tradition based on insite-relization that all things are interconnected and empty rather then a death=rebirth cycle.

-In teh Dhammapada, the first teaching of the Buddha, he explains his basic teachings. He students don’t get it at first and then one says “That which is of the nature to begin, has the nature to end.” and it begins the “Revolution of the wheel of dharma.” If this isn’t proof, I don’t know what is!

-I think that that W Brothers pick Neo because of his pop-action film status AND because he actually made a good buddha.

-In the Little Buddha seen where Gotama (the buddha) meets mara, he looks up and says “hello architect.” This comes from the idea that we are all living in a house that’s burning. In that house we try to esacpe into transcendent and worldly states of mind, neither way puts out the fire. The house is constructed by our own egos, our self-serving architects that traps us in our own manifestations.

I beleive that the Oracle is the Earth Mother and that all of the “programs” are the Demons, devas, hungry ghosts, etc. If some of them are forces of Illusion, then others are forces of compassion.

When the buddha gains enlightenment, he has an encounter with Mara the personification of illusion who surrounds him with visions. At the end, surrounded by millions of maras demons, he is asked by Mara “who is the witness to your right to sit here?” The buddha touches the earth and says “The Earth is my Witness.” And mara is destroyed.

The Earth Reveals how to go about the turning of the wheel and suggests that “that which has a beginning, has an ending”

Another thing: in Buddhism, there are suppose to be 6 buddhas in this world. Gotama Siddartha was supposed to be the 4th. Neo is told that he is the 6th “One.”

Etc.

Hope that helped.

PS: what it up with Sati? What were her parents? What does she represent? A new life within the Matrix?

Best,
Jordan

MaxNov 10, 2003 at 6:42PM

I still don’t like this movie, but I love this discussion, because everyone’s viewpoint on it is very interesting and insightful (minus the “you’re crazy/fucking stupid for not liking this movie” and the “show us what you’ve done better” posts). Like I said earlier, I’m glad that many of you found enjoyment out of it, and I’m not out to slam on your tastes in film. Not everyone likes the same thing, and in the case of this discussion, opposing viewpoints often bring new enlightenment.

I loved where the second one was going with the philosophy of their world, but this one should have followed up more on the nature of man and machine’s relationship with each other, in my opinion. To me, I still don’t understand why a machine would honor Neo’s word, a human conviction, or why the machines didn’t just terminate the Matrix program if Smith was such a threat? Machines don’t bargin, programs don’t bargin. They just do what they do (as supported by the movie’s general philosophy). These questions really took me out of the story, although it needed to end in this way for the story to work (I get that), the execution of the story just seemed a little hokey to me. I needed more, because not everyone is coming to the table with a degree in eastern religion (or for that matter, computer science). I feel like it needs another movie to finish the story; I’m okay with questions left for me to ponder later, but I wasn’t satisfied leaving the theater.

Loved the action though, especially when they went to Hell. And I liked how someone above mentioned whether the Merovingian and Persephone were maybe a previous Neo and Trinity. Something I never thought of. Very cool discussion.

jordanNov 10, 2003 at 6:46PM

Something else to add:

All those “Neos” in the architects office where the various calucations of response needed for “The One” the unpredictable one. That’s why when Neo responds “bullshit” they all do and then the Architect says something like “anger is the most predictable of human emotions” (not anger but something like that…

They are probability calucations, not other “Ones”

Spoon BoyNov 10, 2003 at 6:58PM

jordan says:

the Architect says something like “anger is the most predictable of human emotions” (not anger but something like that…

It was denial.

Regarding your thoughts on Buddhism, you’ll undoubtedly find the following essay on Buddhism, Christianity, and the Matrix worth a read:

http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/thematrix.htm

John BedardNov 10, 2003 at 7:02PM

Michael (?) said:
“I don’t have a problem with the wireless connection, it’s not such a stretch, although I found it odd that he had to be jacked in at the end of the film.”

I was thinking that Deus Ex Machina jacked into Neo at the end to insure that if/when Neo “failed” and Smith puddinged him, the machine could use that connection to hack into Smith and stop him, not that Neo needed the physical connection anymore. Just another line of defense/attack.

Re: the Logos’ EMP - even if the ship had not been disabled by the EMP field/blackened sky, how much of the machine city do you think the one ship’s EMP could have taken out? It couldn’t possibly have made that much difference. And even though Neo didn’t know why, specifically, he had to go to the machine city, I’m sure he was thinking along the lines of making contact with some kind of intelligence. But had he told the people onboard the Hammer, they might’ve thought he was even crazier and stopped him from going.

Randomly:
- Smith calling the Oracle ‘Mom’ was killer.
- Hugo Weaving is a god.
- Keanu’s part was well within his acting ability.
- Don’t count on the Ws explaining anything on the DVD, though some of the actors might let something slip in the documentary interviews - assuming they’ve been given anymore insight than we have.
- There will be a sequel, and it will also be open ended - it’s the online Evercrack-style game.

-Thanks, Jason. And to all the substantive contributors to these discussions - you all help enhance the movie(s).

John

Spoon BoyNov 10, 2003 at 7:08PM

- Smith calling the Oracle ‘Mom’ was killer.

Indeed. Especially after she called him a bastard.

“You’d know, Mom.”

- There will be a sequel

There already is. It’s a movie from 1999, entitled “The Matrix”.

jordanNov 10, 2003 at 7:09PM

spoon boy:

Yeah, that was it, thanks.

Just finished that essay, really good.

Other thought on Buddhism is that, while Hinduism rejects the system and Hedonism embraces it, the Buddha’s route is to walk the middle path, see that the matrix is and isn’t an illusion at the same time.

The Mayor put it well when he talked about how they are dependent on machines. The “truce” with mara that the buddha makes doesn’t free all people from illusion, it helps us live in compassion within the matrix.

There isn’t that much difference between Zion and the Matrix: they are both dependant on machines, survival would be impossible without them. Their resistance is through the tools of the system.

I think a good read for all would be the Cyborg Manifesto:
www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html

Humans could never all escape the matrix, but a few might. Like a good Bodhisatva, Neo won’t fully leave the Matrix until all are saved.

FreonNov 10, 2003 at 7:33PM

I believe the reason that Neo has to jack in at the Deus Ex Machina in order to enter the Matrix instead of just doing a wireless connect is because he can’t. When he did it the first time it almost killed him, and only got him into the trainstation. It was a time of great need and in away it was an accident, it wasn’t something he could do.

And to explain the fiery images he can see at the end when he’s blind you can say they are residual images. He’s not making contact with the Matrix but his hardware is picking up electricity.

jordanNov 10, 2003 at 7:48PM

Another revelation:

Kamala is one name of the Goddess Padme (or lotus.) She is Vishnu’s wife. When Vishnu manifests in the world as rama, she takes the form of Sita.

Sita is the goddess who is the wife of Shiva. She sacrifices herself and shiva carries around her body until the world ends. She is reborn and contines beyond each Kalpa (world.)

iggyNov 10, 2003 at 8:32PM

freon says:He’s not making contact with the Matrix but his hardware is picking up electricity.

Is Neo a program or a machine (or a hybrid?).

I remember in the first movie, Morpheus says something like “the One was born in the matrix and has power to manipulate it.” That Neo can manipulate the matrix - to a certain extent - is clearly seen in the movies. But how can someone be “born inside the matrix” unless he was written into the program?

It just ties in, with the Architect telling him that the purpose of the One is to go to the Source and collect other recruits to repopulate the next Zion. Saying that the One has a stated purpose - well, it’s almost like he was created by the Architect specifically to help balance the matrix equation.

I know, it doesn’t make sense, we’ve seen Neo unplugged from the Matrix in the first movie, and if Neo were a program, then he wouldn’t exits in the “real” world, right? But I just can’t get around that “born inside the matrix” line.

I’m confused - any thoughts on this?

By the way, this thread is really fascinating.

sparkaneNov 10, 2003 at 8:58PM

Note to Brian L:

You have said Cerebus twice here.

You mean Cerberus.

Cerberus (or Kerberos) was the three-headed guardian of Hades.

Cerebus is an aardvark in a comic book who wields a sword. Originally a parody of Conan the Barbarian.

Sorry about the nit-picking.

sparkaneNov 10, 2003 at 8:59PM

Note to Brian L:

You have said Cerebus twice here.

You mean Cerberus.

Cerberus (or Kerberos) was the three-headed guardian of Hades.

Cerebus is an aardvark in a comic book who wields a sword. Originally a parody of Conan the Barbarian.

Sorry about the nit-picking.

sparkaneNov 10, 2003 at 9:10PM

and the double post.

SueNov 10, 2003 at 9:17PM

Hi, I don’t think I’ve read anyone comment on this yet. The “tag line” of the movie was “everything that has a beginning has an end.” The name of the ship that Neo and Trinity took was called The Logos. In the beginning, there was the Word, the Logos. The Logos mission was kind of an ending as well.

DaveNov 10, 2003 at 9:18PM

I’m surprised I haven’t read this here (maybe I have - such a long thread already): In the first movie when Morpheus refers to the one who could manipulate the Matrix and freed the first of them - he’s talking about Neo’s predecessor. The 5th Neo chose the door that leads to the Source, Zion as he knew it was destroyed, and he freed 23 people and took them to Zion. That’s always supposed to be the last job of the One.

sparkaneNov 10, 2003 at 9:20PM

Freon said:
I believe the reason that Neo has to jack in at the Deus Ex Machina in order to enter the Matrix instead of just doing a wireless connect is because he can’t. When he did it the first time it almost killed him, and only got him into the trainstation. It was a time of great need and in away it was an accident, it wasn’t something he could do.

I think the Limbo episode wasn’t something Neo “did”. I think in M3 the Oracle says that Neo had connected to the Source, which should have killed him, because he was not ready for it, but he was not ready to die either, so he ended up in limbo. So his wifi moment was really more of an accident from connecting with the power that allowed him to zap some sentinels. He never had (AFAIK) the ability to jack in remotely.

michaelNov 10, 2003 at 10:20PM

jordan said:
In the first movie, Neo opens a book. If you look at it carefully it is Baudrillard’s “simulacrum and simulation.” An amazing book that the Matrix is a metaphor for.

The Matrix is also a literal Simulacrum with everyone in it basically being a talking head. And the Deus ex machina is THE talking head.

One of the things about the Matrix which the Ws did well was mold the allegory such that there is no single, or right way to look at it. You can “jack in” at any point and there’s a whole world to explore. It is a convergence of religious, existential, and epistemic philosophy, wrapped in myth, and inked with socio-political humor, cyberpunk jargon, and superhero/anime culture. It is a petri dish for anything you want to grow out of it. It takes on all comers and reflects back whatever you want to see in it.

I had a thought that maybe the Matrix was the machines dreaming. Like Vishnu dreaming and creating the universe so that it can understand itself. That the machines are actually asking the question, “why am I here?” and they needed humans to make a leap of faith and belief in God. That the One was created to be the finger pointing at itself. Sort of tied in with the idea of the Oracle saying she “believed”, and that Neo made a believer out of her.

Neo is transforming throughout the Trilogy. In the first movie, Tank off-handedly refers to him as “a machine”. Three time during Reloaded Neo is referred to as human. The agents at the beginning of the movie refer to him as the anomaly but that he is “still Human”. Counselor Hamman says that Neo not sleeping is a sign that he is “still Human”, and the Architect says to Neo that although the process has altered his conciousness, he remains “irrevocably Human”. In the end he is God.

What is the Process he speaks of though? Passing through the door of light, or is there something more? Is Neo the God made flesh, or is he “the Machine” made flesh?

Oh, and I’ve seen the machines in the Machine city get referred to as insects. They look a lot more like sea creatures to me, and that ties in with the squiddies, the ships as subs, and a host of other things. The first thing I thought of when I saw the Deus ex machina was a sea urchin. Then of course all lit up as Ra the sun god.

Spoon BoyNov 10, 2003 at 10:27PM

Dave says:

The 5th Neo chose the door that leads to the Source, Zion as he knew it was destroyed, and he freed 23 people and took them to Zion.

Ah, now we’re getting to the core of the matter! This is the real question:

DID THE FIVE PREVIOUS NEOS CHOOSE DOOR 1 OR DOOR 2?

So Dave, you’re suggesting that the previous Neos voluntarily chose to exterminate the men, women, and children of Zion, including his pal Morpheus. Correct?

Do you really think Neo would do such a thing?

Nature BoyNov 10, 2003 at 10:27PM

I want to thank the costume designer for Persnickity’s dress.

Nature BoyNov 10, 2003 at 10:51PM

Isn’t that Frenchman one lucky bastard? And yes, I do have green hair but I can’t stop the war.

michaelNov 10, 2003 at 10:56PM

sparkane said:
I think the Limbo episode wasn’t something Neo “did”. I think in M3 the Oracle says that Neo had connected to the Source, which should have killed him, because he was not ready for it, but he was not ready to die either, so he ended up in limbo.

However, it was Neo that asked, “How was it I was able to separate my mind from my body without jacking in.” [paraphrased]

I’m sure he wasn’t purposely trying to jack in wifi-style, but tried tapping in to what he felt. I assumed that after his talk with the Oracle that this would be something he might be able to strengthen, or something the machines could make use of at the end (yes I know Neo used it again against the machines). Instead it was mostly used as the vehicle to introduce Sati. Just one of those things.

CriticNov 10, 2003 at 11:44PM

Would you make a sequal to Pulp Fiction? Memento? The Usual Suspects? The Wachowski brothers pissed all over a really good movie by making two shitty sequals for one reason: money.

The two sequals have great action/sci-fi, but are completely void of great acting, script or endings.

The absolute worst line in Reloaded: Neo: “You can’t die Trinity, because I love you too damn much”. Revolutions: Neo: “You can’t die Trinity” Trinity: “Yes I can”.

ScottNov 11, 2003 at 12:52AM

Critic says:

The two sequals have great action/sci-fi, but are completely void of great acting, script or endings.

So Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith), Gloria Foster/Mary Alice (the Oracle) and Lambert Wilson (the Merovingian) didn’t deliver great performances? I’m not saying anyone wins any Oscars here, but surely it is over-reaching to say the sequels were “completely void” of great acting.

Personally I thought the worst line was when Neo wakes up in the train station and Sati asks him, “Are you from the Matrix?” and he answers, “Yes. No. I don’t know.”

Also the trilogy wasn’t completely lacking an ending either. Sure, there was plenty that got left unanswered but there was a conclusion to the main tale. To be sure, the movies are not feeding you answers from a silver spoon (after all, there is no spoon!) and that is part of their appeal. People are free to draw their own conclusions. Kind of like good lingerie. What is not revealed is often more tantalizing than what is.

nelzsNov 11, 2003 at 1:33AM

why the hell does neo have “powers” in the real world? clairvoyance (orange-vision), telekinesis (emps off his hand), all that? i’m not convinced of the idea that he can hack machines thru the matrix.. and remotely at that.. enabling him to shut squiddies down just by thinking it.

plus, i thought the matrix was a very elegant explanation for all things paranormal, from esp to ghosts. e.g. the rationale for telekinesis was “there is no spoon.” now they’re telling us that telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc. is also humanly possible in the real world? i was like, “hold it right there!”

something about sati. when the oracle sent her to deliver cookies to seraph — doing chores around the house as it seems — i wondered. is she one of what they called the potentials, and are the potentials’ origins like hers? you know what? the potentials’ existence have not been explained either!

FreonNov 11, 2003 at 2:03AM

The potentials are children in the Matrix that have naturally rejected the programming. They can break the rules. For example the boy that bends the spoon is breaking the rules of the matrix because he knows there is no spoon. That same boy is now in Zion because he sent Neo a spoon in Reloaded.

The rebels were looking for ‘the one’ and these children had the potential to be.

Stewart JohnsonNov 11, 2003 at 2:25AM

I’m not sure if anyone has posted it yet (there sure are a lot of comments!) but I think that the little Indian girl (Sati) was the Machine’s expression of love. When Neo met her he realised that the Machines can express love, and realised that detroying machines was unnecessary.

In the Animatrix we learn that humans originally gave the Machines the rough end of the stick by creating perfect AI and then not giving it any rights. The Machines just wanted to be recognised as their own state/race, that’s how the War started. So when Neo realises that the Machines are capable of expressing love, he realises that there must be a truce not a victor to end the war.

Once Trinity is dead he knows that all has left to fight for is that truce, so he sacrifices himself as a conduit for the machines to fight Smiths.

That’s how I see it anyway. It took me a while after seeing it to sort that all out in my head, and eventually I found it satisfying.

Muad'dibNov 11, 2003 at 5:13AM

The Matrix is an utter rip-off of Frank Herbert’s original theme, presented in the Dune Saga. The W’s just took it, updated it for the 21st century. Read the saga and tell me it isn’t so. Once our hero triumphs over evil, Herbert really takes the story to some wild places… it really never ends… one cycle/ruler begets another….

MartinNov 11, 2003 at 5:30AM

Sorry, I don’t have to prove anything, and I resent your insinuation that I am lying or making this up.

Sorry, but you do - and unless you show us information to the contrary (as I have), then no-one will believe you.

I didn’t say you were lying, I just don’t believe you.

Different thing.

There’s nothing worse than people making wild claims to support a premise that they can’t back up with facts. If you’re a journalist, you should know this as well as I do.

I’ve shown you an article from one of the biggest media organisations in the world - and they make no mention of a sequel - yet you say that proves nothing.

You even quote TIME magazine as having made no mention of a sequel - but hey, that proves nothing either.

I’ve shown you other chronologies, and they don’t mention it either.

Don’t you think someone, somewhere in the big wide world of online journalism would have said something about a sequel (or two) - especially when this movie was so popular?

In fact, the only mention of a trilogy that anyone can see, came after the takings for The Matrix were posted.

However, my point is made - the sequels were rotten, mainly because there was no more story to tell (despite wild claims about a “trilogy”being part of the original, overall plan) - and as I’ve already said, no amount of analysis in the world will make this movie stand up.

MixedNov 11, 2003 at 5:34AM

Geee… I’m glad at least someone noticed that! :)
But I wouldn’t say a ripoff of Dune saga, but very inspired. The ending is almost the same to the one in the last book of Dune… The blinding of Neo who gets a special vision, basicaly it’s the same thing with the blinding of Paul, who also has a vision… and many other things…
Anyway, I liked Matrix, comes with an interesting ideea and it’s also an interesting mixture of stories, symbols, inspirations from other literature and movies.

PlatypussNov 11, 2003 at 6:24AM

That’s how I recomcile it, Stewart Johnson. Neo now realises (via Sati), that the machines are becoming more human and by destroying the matrix (by freeing all the humans) he will be destroying a new part of humanity.

The war does not have to be won for it to be over.

ScottNov 11, 2003 at 10:28AM

Martin, I hope you don’t believe everything you don’t read in the media! You surely don’t only read Big Media like CNN and Time? Even a journalist like me knows better than that! :)

Look, I already explained why I think that wasn’t reported back in 1999: no one really knew how big “The Matrix” would become. Talk of sequels was premature. Also, I only know what was said in the roundtable I attended. I don’t know for sure if the issue of sequels ever came up in other sessions, though I find it hard to believe it wouldn’t have. One benefit of roundtables is that while you lose exclusivity (can’t say “Keanu Reeves said in an intervew…), you gain collective wisdom. That is, someone else will probably think of a question you should have thought of but didn’t. We may actually have wrung more detail out of our time with those involved in the film. Just a theory.

However, in the spirit of good-natured argument, I have spent the last 90 minutes or so combing through various Matrix Web sites and postings. I have to admit that there is scant evidence out there that supports what I am saying. The closest I got is this thread:

http://www.smoe.org/lists/ecto/Volume05/v05.n158

To excerpt:

“There are no plot holes. If anything *seemed* like
a plot hole, either the person watching didn’t “get”
it, or it’s something that will be in either the prequel
or the sequel (the Wachowski Brothers planned
this as a trilogy)

That post is dated early May 1999, about a month after the first movie was released. The poster provides no details but obviously got the notion from somewhere, probably a Big Media interview he read at the time.

There is also the November 1999 Web chat with the Wachowskis that is widely circulated and is available on the www.whatisthematrix.com Web site:

“Freethinker: Did you know right away that it would be a trilogy?

WachowskiBros: We knew we had too much material for one movie.”

This suggests that they at least had ideas kicking around for where to take the story.

Still, I know the subject of sequels came up. But, since I don’t have the transcript of the roundtable I attended at hand (the two microcassettes containing the comments are packed away in a storage locker about 6,000 miles from where I am), I am willing to grant the possibility that the phrasing may have been something like, “We always knew we wanted to do a trilogy”, or “We had the idea that this could be a trilogy”, and not necessarily “We have written this as a trilogy.”

It is clear that the brothers, if they didn’t already have full blown scripts in hand, at least had thoughts on how to take the story further and flesh out the ideas of the first one.

Meanwhile, I’m reminded of this bit of dialogue from “Reloaded”:

Commander Lock: Dammit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

Cheers.

P.S. The same November 1999 Web chat also seems to pour cold water on what Joe Pantoliano told reporters about the possibility of Cypher returning:

“BigMac: Rumor has it that Cypher is not dead….is this true?

WachowskiBros: If you ask Joey Pants, it is. Joey Pants started that rumor.”

Siddarta GouthamaNov 11, 2003 at 10:41AM

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your postings above concerning Smith calling the Oracle “Mom”.

To me, this meant nothing else than the fact that the Oracle is the Mother of the Matrix, thus no Trin or Pers as the mother.

Spoon boy, this one’s for you.
I believe the other Ones choose door nr.2, the same as Neo did.
However, I don’t really understand Cln. Sanders “humph” reaction. He new it from advance that Neo would choose nr.2. What is the humph for? The humph with previous ONes I could perhaps understand a little, but for Neo, it was obvious that he would choose nr2. I don’t understand the “humph” here.

Also, the screens in the Architect’s room are not previous Ones , these are all probability calculations, predictions of what is about to happen. This also explains the fact that we see Trin falling down on the screens, whereas this is about to happen.

I have some questions
1. how many previous iterations of the matrix were there?
2. has Zion been destroyed before?
3. if not, than the Architect was lying , and this seems more like a human thing to do, doesn’t it?

Overall impression on the Trilogy: Superb!!!
M1. birth
M2. Life
M3. death

M3 had the open ended plot that I expected, no winners no losers, but the story of this movie was badly told, allthough it was a great story. M2 conversations (apart from the Oracle, Merv and Cnl. Sanders) could also have been much better.

But hey, I find the W bro’s did a great job and achieved something rare. that is that a lot of people, young&old, agnostics&religious, action&philosophy lovers, got something out of it and all of them had the chance to start thinking about the life that we live, about the reality that we live in .
That is something that a lot of philosophy teachers can only dream of to achieve with there students.

GhostNov 11, 2003 at 11:56AM

Check this out: 0AC0 1BFA………..

John BedardNov 11, 2003 at 12:00PM

Sidd,

I don’t remember anyone reading more into Smith calling Oracle, “Mom.” Ostensibly Smith was created to serve in some capacity in the Matrix (although it’s debatable what his true original purpose was - police the matrix to stop the rebels by finding the “codes to Zion’s mainframe” or police the matrix to make sure the anomoly of the One fullfilled it’s purpose). To me it just showed, once and for all, that it was indeed the Oracle that the Architect referred to as the mother of the Matrix. I think his response to Neo, “Puh-leez,” was his reaction to the name “Oracle” that she was using, and that perhaps that wasn’t always what she was called.

John

GhostNov 11, 2003 at 12:11PM

Hey, if Merv is the trafficker of programs - then wouldn’t he have been the one that allowed Smith to return? Could be Smith is just Merv’s puppet.

As far as the movie goes…… I haven’t arrived at a conclusion yet. But the answers are coming.

DaveNov 11, 2003 at 1:11PM

So Dave, you’re suggesting that the previous Neos voluntarily chose to exterminate the men, women, and children of Zion, including his pal Morpheus. Correct?

Do you really think Neo would do such a thing?

I absolutely think that the previous “Ones” chose door no. 1.

Making The One choose between the people living in Zion and every living human is a typical philosophical thought experiment (see Star Trek III). He makes The One decide between saving people he knows and saving all of humanity. The logical choice, and the one The Architect assumes he’ll choose, is to choose to sacrifice the few hundred people living in Zion over the millions jacked into the Matrix.

But our One (Neo) is different.

The Architect says:
The Architect - Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Whichever choice previous Ones have made, Zion has been destroyed.

The Architect - The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.

If that’s the function of the One - to choose door no. 1, but no previous One had chosen door no. 1, would the Architect still be telling Neo it’s his function? That is, if every previous One had malfunctioned?

Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, love.

There’s never been a Trinity before. The previous Ones loved all of humanity, so though it killed them (literally) to sacrifice Zion, they chose door no. 1 because of their “profound attachment.” To choose otherwiese would have been to get the whole human race killed.

But since our Neo has his specific love (Trinity), his emotional attachment is split. He has to choose between love of the entire human race, and his love of Trinity. In choosing door no. 2 he risks everyone else, everything else, but may be able to save Trinity (which he does).

———-

So here’s the outline assuming Neo’s the only One to choose door no. 2:
Previous Anderson rises: becomes One. Machines come to get Zion, he encounters the architect and chooses Door no. 1. Everyone in Zion is killed.
Matrix reboots: Previous One arrives, frees 23 people, brings them to Zion (presumably rebuilt by the machines). He explains it as an ancient city dating to the time of the original wars (2nd Renaissance era), and sends them to the Oracle. She relays the prophesy.
A new One rises one day: it starts over again.

That goes until our Neo comes about and chooses Trinity over the world.

——-

The only other explanation I can see if if you make the loop much, much larger, such that all of human history is one iteration. Each Neo chooses door no. 2, a golden age is born, and eventually out of that golden age the machines rise again, enslave humanity, and so it goes.

The problem is that at the end the Architect seems defeated. He agrees to free the humans, while earlier he said that they would all die. Was he just lying when he told Neo that in Reloaded, even though he’s seen it happen 5 times now?

Spoon BoyNov 11, 2003 at 1:54PM

Dave says:

The problem is that at the end the Architect seems defeated. He agrees to free the humans, while earlier he said that they would all die. Was he just lying when he told Neo that in Reloaded, even though he’s seen it happen 5 times now?

He’s incapable of lying. Neo’s choice (as well as the previous five Neos’ choices) are beyond his understanding. As the Oracle says of the Architect’s understanding of choice:

That man can’t see past any choices. He doesn’t understand them - he can’t. To him they are variables in an equation. One at a time each variable must be solved and countered. That’s his purpose: to balance an equation.

Dave continues:

The Architect - The function of the One is now to return to the source

If that’s the function of the One - to choose door no. 1, but no previous One had chosen door no. 1, would the Architect still be telling Neo it’s his function? That is, if every previous One had malfunctioned?

Neo DID go to the Source, WITHOUT choosing Door 1. He got there on his own terms, against the odds. Against the Architect’s conditions. So, as it turns out, Door 1 was not the only way to get to the Source.

The previous Ones loved all of humanity, so though it killed them (literally) to sacrifice Zion, they chose door no. 1 because of their “profound attachment.” To choose otherwiese would have been to get the whole human race killed.

Not true. As Revs clearly shows us, it is entirely possible for Neo to choose Door 2 and save Zion @ the same time, accessing the Source through other means. This contradicts what the Architect says, so we must consider the Architect’s statements not as ultimate truth, but as part of a design.

Spoon BoyNov 11, 2003 at 2:01PM

Sidd says:

I have some questions
1. how many previous iterations of the matrix were there?

I say five. The recurring 101 hints @ this. But it probably doesn’t matter.

2. has Zion been destroyed before?

Not in extermination fashion, as the Architect claims. But @ the end of Revs, we can reason that the war is not over yet, and that the years ahead will bring hard times for Zion. This will again be the driving force to find the next One.

3. if not, than the Architect was lying , and this seems more like a human thing to do, doesn’t it?

The Architect cannot lie by his own choice. But he can say what he was designed to say.

Sir Mildred PierceNov 11, 2003 at 2:05PM

Some interesting dialogue from the video game “Enter the Matrix”, it might reveal some interesting insight in to the character Sati:

-Ghost meets the Oracle-

Oracle : You must be Ghost?
Ghost : Who are you?
Oracle : I am the Oracle.
Ghost : If that’s true, then what’s my response to that postulate?
Oracle : Truth is an event, and only through experience can the veracity of a truth be verified.
Ghost : William James.
Oracle : You’re asking me to prove it?
Ghost : Can you?
Oracle : I can tell you that I only remember bits and pieces of my past. I don’t remember your face, but I remember your heart. You asked me one question, if she would ever love you? I told you, only as a friend, as her brother. Yes, I remember that smile. I recall asking what you were thinking, but I can’t remember what you said.
Ghost : I thanked you.
Oracle : Why?
Ghost : Because I felt freed.
Oracle : From what?
Ghost : Expectation.

-The Oracle smiles-

Ghost : Can you tell me what happened to you?
Oracle : Two programs that I trusted sold the termination code of my original shell to the Merovingian.
Ghost : Why did they do that?
Oracle : For love. For the life of their child.
Ghost : You knew about it, and yet you let it happen?
Oracle : I had to.
Ghost : Why?
Oracle : Because the child is important. I can’t tell you why, but I believe one day, the child will change both our world and your world forever.
Ghost : Is that why you called for me?
Oracle : No. I am trying to prepare those that stand in the front lines of our coming trial. We stand upon the edge of a precipice, the fall from which we will not return. Each of us must find courage, when we are most afraid to do what we must. That is our only hope.

-Seraph enters the room-

Seraph : We must go.
Ghost : Thank you.
Oracle : Ghost, you still love her, don’t you?
Ghost : As much as she loves another.
Oracle : That is a hard path to walk.
Ghost : Nietzsche said it best “One must want nothing to be different — not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not only bear what is necessary, but to love it.”
Oracle : Armor fati. You’re a good man, Ghost. If somehow we do survive, if the path does continue, I hope it is made by others like you.

The Oracle also meets Niobe and makes some similar remarks:
Oracle : As I said, you may not recognize the face, but who and what I am beneath remains the same.
Niobe : Can I ask what happened?
Oracle : The Merovingian warned me that if I made a certain choice, it would cost me. He is, among other things, a man of his word.
Niobe : What was the choice?
Oracle : The same one you yourself will have to make — the choice to help Neo or not.

neo110Nov 11, 2003 at 2:12PM

another quickie on the door1/door2 front:

The whole purpose of the Architect’s speech in Reloaded is to convince Neo of the inevitability of his predictions. Neo is presented with two choices

1 - wipe out everyone in Zion
2 - wipe out everyone in Zion PLUS everyone in the Matrix

The point is that the previous Ones have taken these choices at face value, and have decided that the choice is really only whether or not to save those in the Matrix. If we accept the Architect’s presented choices as inevitable, then Zion is already dead.

The difference here (to my thinking) is that Neo decides that his choice matters. He decides that he is not limited to the options given, and that by choosing a door he does not necessarily choose the fate predicted by the Architect.

If we assume that Neo did the same as all the previous ones, then we’re basically assuming that the whole story was pointless. I reckon that what the Architect says can basically be taken at face value in that there’s no intentional deception, but there’s some heavy psychology in there to try and make Neo believe what the Architect needs him to believe - that his choice cannot save the people of Zion.

As to the Architect’s reaction, my guess is that he and the Oracle have a bet going on as to how the introduction of Trinity will affect things… The Architect’s just smarting that he’s out five bucks ;)

neo110Nov 11, 2003 at 2:21PM

and for some light/not so light relief:

http://www.themeatrix.com/

Brian LNov 11, 2003 at 2:40PM

Check this out: 0AC0 1BFA………..

Nod. When you hover on the third square on the top level of the what is the matrix website, broadband version, this - rather 0x0AC01BFA - shows up in the display monitor. Its the key to getting to the 128 but encryption access panel.

I say five. The recurring 101 hints @ this. But it probably doesn’t matter.

GhostNov 11, 2003 at 3:12PM

Ok, Help me out here…… The main reason I haven’t come to a definitive conclusion about films is because of the ending.

I was under the impression that the Oracle can only see the future because it has happened before. If that is true then how can she see that Smith will take her over and furthermore how can Smith see where it all will end?

To me that would implies that this version is still a repeat of previous versions. That would imply that your right and that The One has walked this same path before. I don’t see any other way around it. But even that still raises suspicion doesn’t it?


Guess i’ll have to go and watch them all again.

Tony13Nov 11, 2003 at 3:25PM

The whole Matrix story is truly amazing and thought provoking. I have noticed that the ‘full circle’ idea was done once before, but with a negative outlook of the future of humanity. Some of you might have seen it, some have not…but I think that you can relate this story line to all of the original movies of The Planet of the Apes…all 7 of them ( I belivee that it was 7 ). Primates evolved, we enslaved them, they rose against us, they enslaved us. Taking into account The Animatrix stories, the pattern is the same. However, in PLANET, both sides fought, and annihilated EVERYTHING..each race, and the Earth. Taking a lesson from both stories, Planet and Matrix, what lessons does humanity need to learn in order to survive…. in an upcoming age where the Matrix story, and even the Terminator story, might even become a reality?

As long as you are thinking about this, try this one out for size: he may have taken the wrong path to prevent the inevitable, but if you read his Manifest, Ted Kazinsky ( that’s the phoenetic spelling of his name, because I really don’t care how the correct spelling is ) WAS RIGHT. Technology is evolving way too fast, and we are becoming entirely too dependent on technology in our lives. Technology has been shrinking the work force ( alongside scumbag CEO’s who ship computer-typing jobs to India, instead of supporting the American workforce…… for the profit that they piss away instead of keeping an American employed ) in a world where the human population is growing at an alarming rate. I believe that at this rate, humanity will not live to see the 22nd century….if all goes well, at least not on this planet.

OK, returning from a WAY OFF BASE tangent, The Matrix was an awesome story. Truly entertaining. If you hated it, then at least you can go ot the video store and rent Gigli for the 2,000nth time, you f***ing panzies. Thought provoking entertainment rules, and for the rest of the brain dead world…there’s always wrestling, monster trucks, and incest. Thanks for listening.

Brian LNov 11, 2003 at 4:06PM

I was under the impression that the Oracle can only see the future because it has happened before.

The impression I got is that the function of the Oracle program is essentially to squash all the possible outcomes down into the most probable and that is what she sees. Not what will happen but what will most likely happen.

The Architect would seem to function on a similar level although I’d suspect he has a variety of other Matrix Maintainence functions as well.

The difference between how the two resolve the same issues differently would be that the Oracle is designed to allow for choice… unresolved variables… something along those lines… whereas the Architect, who I see as an older program than the Oracle, was not designed with that functionality in mind.

The Architect would be as old as the initial attempt at a Matrix while the Oracle would be at least one cycle younger than him.

As to why the Oracle can’t see past a desciscion she doesn’t understand, well, one bad line of code can cause a program/system to crash, no. Something like that?

DaveNov 11, 2003 at 4:27PM

Take any situation where you have two people. One is much smarter than the other, has experienced a lot of life, and understands almost everything about the world around him. The other knows very little. To the ignorant person, the first person would seem like an all-powerful oracle. She can’t see past any decision she can’t understand because she doesn’t have enough to go on to make a prediciton.

But then there’s the principle of induction. At the very beginning of Enter the Matrix, Ghost quotes Hume. He says something along the line of “if you drop a ball, it might drop to the floor, or it might rise to the ceiling. Past occurence does not dictate the future.” The idea (which has never been disproven) is that all causality is implied. You can’t say that the sun will rise in the morning because it rose every other morning, but you can assume that the pattern will continue. Whenever things seem to be repeating in a pattern, you can never point to the pattern to prove the next occurance of an event in the pattern. Patterns are just drawn by our minds.

The Oracle can’t actually see the future, she’s just an amazingly advanced “intuitive program” who understands the Matrix world so well and has enough data about it available to her that her guesses and pattern-reading seem to be predictions.

GhostNov 11, 2003 at 4:47PM

Another possibility is that it is all just a game to the machines. Like a giant chessboard. The convo between the Oracle and the Architect in the end would follow that line of thinking.

DaveNov 11, 2003 at 4:49PM

Another note to my comment just above, this would also explain why the Architect balks when Neo called her an oracle - he realizes that she can’t see the future, she just seems like she can to him.

GhostNov 11, 2003 at 4:51PM

Dave:

If her knowledge is the only way she can predict - then how would she know that Smith would say, “everything that has a beginning has an end”?

DaveNov 11, 2003 at 5:08PM

how would she know that Smith would say…

*shrug*

Personally I prefer a mystic explanation (same for how Neo controls stuff outside the Matrix), I’m just putting forth the determinist explanation. (I also think the mystic road better explains how The One can be a predestined occurance. Otherwise we just have to assume that the variables required for evolution to produce The One line up way more often than seems reasonable, or we have to assume that The One was created by the machines, which isn’t supported in any of the films.)

michaelNov 11, 2003 at 5:29PM

Dave said:
“…or we have to assume that The One was created by the machines, which isn’t supported in any of the films.”

Oh yes it is.

Brian LNov 11, 2003 at 5:43PM

If her knowledge is the only way she can predict - then how would she know that Smith would say, “everything that has a beginning has an end”?

Well, the version of Smith Neo was fighting is the one inhabiting the Oracle’s Avatar. At least the fact that after the fight the Oracle’s Avatar is shown in the muddy waters at the bottom of the pit would suggest this.

If that is the case it allows for a few possibilities. One is that Smith can’t completely control the Oracle, her being a program and not simply an Avatar of a pod person.

Another is that since she knew she would give herself to Smith she established a… I don’t know… a subroutine that would, in addition to the Oracle’s primary function (as represented by her eyes) being incorporated into that version of Smith would also be.

Something more logical perhaps.

GhostNov 11, 2003 at 5:48PM

That’s why I have to watch them all again. But my track of thinking is that it has all happened before. That’s how Smith can see what is going to happen at the end. He sees that what he is going to do even though he is supposed to be an anomaly. This is because he has the Oracle eyes that have seen it before and he isn’t an anomaly.

As far as Neo I’m beginning to realize that when he died in Matrix 1 and Trinity proclaimed her love. As this happened he came back to life as the “One” with all the cool “One” powers. I think as soon as the machines saw the love they uploaded the One program into Neo’s dead body. After that it’s all history.

That would explain the wireless connection and the sight beyond sight.

neo110Nov 11, 2003 at 7:01PM

Ghost - yes, that’s what I reckon. The process of “Smith” uploading into Kane (was that his name) shows that this is indeed possible. For those still having a problem with this idea of “uploading”, think about the process of uploading kung fu, or the ability to pilot a helicopter. These uploads are memory based, and I reckon (though I can’t think of specific instances in the films to back this) that these uploads *stay with* the characters in the real world - kind of like how you can remember a dream.

“Learning” and “uploading” are interchangeable in many cases. Neo suddenly acquires a kung-fu subroutine, so he really does “know kung fu”. He can’t do it as well in the real world as he doesn’t have the physical muscle memory or ability to warp the rules like he does in the matrix, but he knows the “how”. Look at some of his moves in the fight with (ah - that’s the name!) Bane. Definitely kung fu, but the kung fu of someone reading too many books…

Anyway, these two events set a precedent, and I can make the leap - while uploading “memory” is like installing an application, what Neo/One and Bane/Smith have is the computer equivalent of schizophrenia - dual-boot operating systems ;-) Except they’re much more integrated than that!

And as for the Oracle “predicting what Smith would say”, bear in mind two things - one, Smith’s closing line is a DIRECT QUOTE from the Oracle. Not a paraphrase, but a word for word quote of what she said to Neo. Two, Smith calls Neo “Neo”, not “Mr. Anderson”. He’s _never_ done this throughout the ENTIRE movie series. It’s his little vindictive joke, rubbing Neo’s nose in the fact that he’s never truly able to leave the Matrix behind.

My theory is that the Oracle “knew” what would happen because it was inevitable that Smith would come for her. He wanted to assimilate everything, so she would be on his list. He couldn’t see “past” his choice to do this, but she could, and she exploted it by allowing herself to be absorbed. This way she knew she’d be able to exert a form of control over Smith and give him a “purpose” without him knowing the “why”. His comments of “I’ve seen this before” I took to mean that the Oracle part of his consciousness was feeding him subliminal images of his desired future in order to blind him to what would actually happen. The risk was that he would understand the trap and hence see past it to his own destruction - The Oracle was therefore feeding his ego his sense of purpose to blind his understanding.

Make sense? That was what I got, anyway…

JordanNov 11, 2003 at 7:51PM

The Oracle didn’t “know” what smith would say:

She tricked him into taking over her, thinking that he could see the future. Then, when the time was right, and Smith thought that “this has happened before” she says through him: “everything that has a beginning has an end” Remember, when all the smiths die, that the oracle is left in the hole?

Pay attention…
Stay on path…

Joe KaczmarekNov 11, 2003 at 10:27PM

I just made another connection. Sure we’ve been refering as the Architect as Col. Sanders because he’s dressed and looks like Mr. Finger-lickin’-good… but I just think I realized why. Col. Sanders was a plantation owner (right? or he just looked like one), and a plantation is a large farm of crops… as is the Matrix a large farm of (human) crops.

FreonNov 12, 2003 at 3:11AM

Why do so many people still believe that there will be another One, or another Neo. Is it so hard to believe that Neo broke them out of the loop they were in. He is the last one to be The One. While he ‘could’ technically come back, that is not important to the story we are being told. Either way who cares, and if you do care, why?

Also Sati is not the next One. She’s a program, Neo is not. What ever he is he is ultimatly Human. She can re-write the Matrix, Neo can only bend the rules or even break them.

The name Neo implies New, meaning he’s new, he’s not the same as the others that came before him.

It’s over ladies and gentleman. Humans are free. Free to make the choice on leaving or staying in the Matrix. They will now be given a real choice, not an unconcioius feeling. No more One’s, no more versions of the Matrix, no more. Finite.

Spoon BoyNov 12, 2003 at 3:11AM

Joe Kaczmarek says:

I just made another connection. Sure we’ve been refering as the Architect as Col. Sanders because he’s dressed and looks like Mr. Finger-lickin’-good… but I just think I realized why

I’m glad you brought this up. We’ve made the Col. Sanders connection in the past, and how it homonymically ties into the computer metaphor with the whole A.I. thing.

Kernel: The central module of an operating system. It is the part of the operating system that loads first, and it remains in main memory, providing all the essential services required by other parts of the operating system and applications. Typically, the kernel is responsible for memory management, process and task management, and disk management.

nelzsNov 12, 2003 at 3:27AM

Another possibility is that it is all just a game to the machines. Like a giant chessboard.

the matrix is an OS and humans are the desktop toys.

neo_XNov 12, 2003 at 4:02AM

Neo wins …

neo_XNov 12, 2003 at 4:03AM

agent smith still sux

Michael HeilemannNov 12, 2003 at 5:35AM

I think I’ve read all the messages in this thread and I haven’t seen anyone bring this up yet.

When Neo defeats Smith - and we shall let it remain unsaid whether he dies or not - and we get the shot from above of his body inside the machine city, notice the cables.

They shape wings of light.

PS: Here’s my rebuke of the negative reviews.

MjelloNov 12, 2003 at 8:32AM

Or its simply the message of the W’s: “The real world. The one we live in is a world with rules that can be bend or broken as you gain wisdom and understands it.” The matrix is a copy of the real world. Allthough a world in a computer but still the same. When we look upon The Matrix rules do not apply and our mind is open for the impossible to happen. In Zion world we are limited. W are trying to breake that barrier down.

In the trilogy W are trying to tell us that if you believe enough you can bend and breake the rules of the real world. The one we live in. The one where we write in this very thread. We can change our lives by sheer will and desire. We can make things happen if we believe in them hard enough. Our dreams can come true if we believe, and work hard enough. We can bend some rules, we can break some.

But not them all. Sometimes things happen that we stand powerless against. Neo returns to the source. Trinity dies. All that begin has an end. We live and die. We are happy we are sad.

A wise man can manipulate a stupid man, and the stupid will never know it.”

The idea of a computersimulation in a computersimulation is old and already used in a movie called “13th floor”. The movie has something of the same message as Matrix.

Maybe the oracle created ZION as the solution to keep the Matrix in balance by providing people with a choice to stay in the Matrix or go live in ZION. Not real world unreal world but a choice between two computersimulations. Morpheus tells us that truth depends on your point of view when he frees Neo in M1. If you believe matrix is real then matrix is real. Same accounts for Zion. Though they could both be unreal. And where is the oracle when she is not present in the matrix.

This would explain Neo’s almost Matrix-powers in the ZION world. A different computersystem. Different rules. But rules that still can be bend or broken. Naiobe pilots the impossible. But they make it because they believe.

No one has really been able to explain what our world really is or what its made of or why we are here. W wants us to think about it and not follow some extremist who does it to gain power and money. And that Matrix makes us do.

That they make ton of money on it, well…

I feel these movies have no final truth or a final conclusion. They are free for all to analyze and conclude upon. Which conclusion is more or less correct is impossible to say because it’s not a piece math with just one solution. Questions are asked. They are not answered in these movies. The same reason why a danish teacher cannot tell you that your conclusion or interpretation of a book is wrong or right. You can only say that your interpretation and opinion is different from mine.

Matrix is a mirror in which you see yourself, your own opinions and beliefs.

praeNov 12, 2003 at 9:06AM

It’s only a fucking film, you nerds. You either have fun, shut up and watch.. or just shut up.

HarryNov 12, 2003 at 9:33AM

Read at cinescape.com that Warners might release the Revs DVD very soon, i.e., by Xmas, because the box office hasn’t been that great…! I wonder what numbers would satisfy number-crunching morons at Warners. I’m hoping for the trilogy to be released on DVD with all sorts of goodies. Hoping for someone to give us a clearer view of everything we’ve been discussing so far…

GhostNov 12, 2003 at 10:12AM

Prae, that’s a petty shallow view of reality. Did you take the blue pill?

I guess I could say the same to you. Either have fun, shut up and watch.. or just shut up, but don’t post.

People like you fortunately won’t post more than a couple times anyway because you really don’t have anything to say except angry ranting because caused from your hetero-phobic tenancies.

But I think the real reason you wont post more than a couple time is because your afraid that people wont accept anything you say if you could muster the strength to come up with a halfway intelligent idea. So you go site to site reading and watching then post a comment like the one above because it makes you angry that you don’t have intellect that would allow you to communicate any other way. Sorry :(

Too Bad, So Sad…….. :(

JordanNov 12, 2003 at 12:08PM

I beleive that the architect isn’t Col. Sanders or a plantation owner- he is Freud. He represents the rational calculating parts of the ego. He beleives he is perfect even though all of this previous matrixes were failures.

Maud'dibNov 12, 2003 at 12:49PM

“I will not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Christopher VaughtNov 12, 2003 at 12:59PM

I noticed that no one has considered the fact that the humans might not want to be permanently unplugged from the Matrix. They may choose to UnPlug but only if it were possible that they could “visit” The Matrix whenever they wanted to. This is an interesting idea explored in Dennis Danvers’ 1998 book “Circuit of Heaven”. That book is the sequel you are all looking for I suspect.

Christopher VaughtNov 12, 2003 at 1:10PM

There is an interesting ancient philosophy of Hermetics that all of the readers here may find enlightening. The Kybalion. There is an online edition at the following URL. http://kybalion.home.att.net/kybalion.html.
Basically the idea is that the everything that exists is a result from a single great cosmic “thought” and that our minds have the ability to control everything. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…” Logos is that word so it is fitting that Neo utilized it.

jordanNov 12, 2003 at 3:14PM

Another realization:

A lot of us were interpreting the architects final statement to mean “I will not go against my word.”

I beleive that, when the architect says “what am I, human?” he means that “no, I will not give my word.”

MartinNov 12, 2003 at 3:31PM

Martin, I hope you don’t believe everything you don’t read in the media! You surely don’t only read Big Media like CNN and Time? Even a journalist like me knows better than that! :)

I do appreciate what you’re saying, but it’s easy for people to say they always had more story in mind when the movie proves to be a success.

I’m sure Peter Rader and David Twohy felt the same about Waterworld, until it bombed.

GhostNov 12, 2003 at 5:43PM

Jordan, the statement can be taken both ways. I think the final determination is the presentation. But it’s confusing isn’t it? I think we all should kidnap the W’s and get all the answers about the movies.

TimNov 12, 2003 at 6:34PM

Kidnapping them sounds like a grand idea…..first we should keep them in a dark room for a couple of days as they have kept us in the dark for so long…….but they do give us some clues………….

First time to this website and the comments shared have been interesting and thought provoking.

Just thought I would share something I picked up while watching Reloaded the other day………don’t think it has been mentioned so far…fogive me if it has been mentioned allready:

The scene near the beginning of the movie where Smith drives up in his black Audi to deliver the earpiece…….the front licence plate reads IS5416. Well, probably when the W’s were doing some background reading for the movie, ran across this passage in Isaiah 54 vs. 16. (note the title at the beginning of the chapter is “The future glory of Zion”)……….anyways, the verse reads:

16 “See, it is I who created the blacksmith
who fans the coals into flame
and forges a weapon fit for its work.
And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc;

cool how the W’s used this in the movie……..don’t quite know how to interpret all of this with respect to the movie….probably the “I” refers to the Oracle????….but it agrees with the control of the Oracle over Agent Smith as mentioned before…..and suggests an inspiration for the “flame” scene in Revolutions.

Spoon BoyNov 12, 2003 at 7:40PM

To those who conclude that the previous Neos chose Door 1, analyze the following conversation from Revs:

Oracle: I made a choice, and that choice cost me more than I wanted it to.

Morpheus: What choice?

Oracle: To help you to guide Neo. Now, since the real test for any choice is having to make the same choice again, knowing full well what it might cost - I guess I feel pretty good about that choice, ‘cause here I am, at it again.

So here she is, at it again. It’s not the first time she’s made the choice to help them guide Neo. So, if she’s made the choice before, then Neo had to have chosen Door 2 before. If he hadn’t, then he wouldn’t be lost in the train station, and there would be no need for the Oracle to make the choice she speaks of.

Minus the fluctuations inherent to the systemic anomaly, everything is happening as it happened before. A loop. Full circle. Revolutions.

zerodougNov 12, 2003 at 7:47PM

Some of the comments posted here have shed some light on what I considered a comic book run wild. I’m still not convinced that all the facts and interpretations presented in this thread were considered by the Ws. I tend to think they took the Cliff Notes from a wide range of philosophy, metaphysics, theology, cosmology and sociology masterpieces, and blended the elements that appealed to them into a story, baked it with big movie money and added a nice SFX icing. I think the trilogy is a great place to get scattered bits of information presented in an entertaining manner, but looking too deeply into it for anything remotely close to real answers would be energy better spent looking into some of the original sources quoted in this thread. I do however like the movies as action flicks with some thought included at no extra cost.

Some of the characters would have helped the story a great deal with better development rather than just hints. The Merovingian, Persephone, and Seraph are the most blatant but the Architect and the Oracle were also pretty shallow. Some of the relationships between them were at best hinted at.

1. The Merovingian: Was once reminiscent of The One. Why? I think he was a sort of savior for unwanted programs and may have been running a sort of “underground railroad” for the exiles. The role of emancipator would fit the comments Persephone makes in Reloaded. A provider of sanctuary for the living dead (programs alive but with no function in the system fits loosely with the Hades reference). Since then he has developed into the representative of Newtonian cause and effect. A perfect example of an AI version of Pierre Simon de Laplace who imagined “an intellect which at a given instant knew all the forces acting in nature,…would be able to predict what this machine of nature would be doing at any time in the future, and to say with certainty what it had been doing at any time in the past.”

2. Following this interpretation, the Architect could represent Einstein and his application of a perfect mathematical language to describe reality. Not as literal as The Merv, he can see a place for choice as an anomaly that doesn’t fit with the perfect worldview the Merv strives for. He is also more creative but that is a part of another trinity formed by the three powerful programs. While admitting there is choice and love, he cannot admit they are a proper answer as with Einstein’s rejection of quantum mechanics.

3. The Oracle is the believer who sees that the observer is just as important as the object. We see or measure what we are equipped to perceive. There are no fixed absolute answers for her just what we bring to the table ourselves. This is a pretty close approximation of the advance of physical theory since the enlightenment.

4. Does anyone see a trinity with:
Architect as Creator/Designer?
Oracle as Provider/Mother?
Merovingian as Destroyer/Keeper of Dead Artifacts?
The three seem to be determined to assume roles that belong to the others. The Arch. is determined to maintain rather than just design. The Oracle is looking to create a new world. The Merv is determined to know and control all. Even if that means he must relegate himself to the matrix and control dead programs and humans. I think he really wants the Architect’s chair. They didn’t give him enough time to develop beyond a pompous mouthpiece echoing the architect.

5. Persephone seems to be a program designed to study “love” exclusively. But, she can only feel it from external sources, whereas Sati is an upgrade that can feel the emotion internally. She is a loving little warm hearted girl. I think she would be a replacement for Persephone rather than the Oracle. If there was a rainbow in the sunrise she created, it is probably a reference to the rainbow covenant between god and Noah stating that he would not destroy the world in this manner again. In Christianity “God is Love”. So in this sense Sati is as close to an AI god as we get. On the subject of love in the trology; Did anyone else find the love between Neo and Trinity flat and dull. They just say they love each other, have sex, and we get the superman routine in Reloaded. What is it about each other that they love? I didn’t see a clue in any of the films. Besides he’s the One of course. But, what the hell does that mean without the love they have between them. Their romance seems like an exercise in circular logic mutated into circular emotions. And, I don’t give a shit if it is about revolutions, circular connections suck and only work for people trying to justify feelings with something that sounds like intelligence. Spoonboy: if you’re still around. this means you and others who post like you.

6. Seraph is really a big problem for me. He is a guardian program that is charged with transporting valuable programs. What bothers me is him showing in gold code in Reloaded. The same as the machine city and sentinels. I think the explanation of a matrix within a matrix is the best, but I think the brothers went the supernatural route on us. Those towers holding humans shown in the Animatrix are the same ones Neo sees in gold in Revs. There was no nested simulation being described in the Animatrix, just the new machine power source. So, Neo seems to see the quantum code behind our universe, as disappointing as that is to me. Which brings me back to Seraph. Why is the physical world on display in the matrix? I think they just fucked up and liked the effect and used it for a different purpose in Revs.

Couldn’t they resist the comic book urge and just let Neo serve the purpose that Nix described a while back as a part of the Oracle’s plan. It seems from the Wired article that being Neo, not Mr. Anderson (choosing who we are rather than having it dictated to us) may be a major issue being worked out by at least one of the brothers. That seems to be a core issue in M1. Don’t let the world, no matter how real it seems, tell you who you are. Set yourself free to be who you want to be. That’s a strong message coming directly from the author. It still rings the truest of all the mix. After that it all went into anime/psychology/theology/physics land. No wonder the trilogy is so open to interpretation. Self realization was the last authentic thing the movies presented. The rest is just the assimilation of a hodgepodge of creative thoughts from around the world.

andreikoNov 12, 2003 at 8:26PM

A much more realistic version of the Matrix as a future…

I say the Matrix itself was built by humans so that everyone can get the perfect ride of their life.

What went wrong is,
1. a perfect fantasy world is against human nature
2. a simulated “normal” world was not good enough for everyone. some people wouldn’t accept a choice made for them before they were born and would have enough vitality to break out
3. these “freed” people would rebel against the machines built by their forgotten predecessors and the machines would have to remove the rebellions in order to protect humanity

This is how I like to see this aspect of the movie as it is a more realistic interpolation of the direction humanity is moving in. (I don’t impose that’s how it was presented)

As for the movies, they were not perfect but not a waste of time either. I definitely recommend the first one.

Cheers,
— Andreiko

KaijimaNov 12, 2003 at 8:29PM

About Prae: you have to remember folks, that the guys who come on the Internet and say things like that to “nerds” often are the same ones who sit in the lazyboy and watch football, talking -endlessly- with their homies about play calls and player statistics. It never occurs to them of course, to think “it’s only sports”. To the typical American sports fan, the importance of Football is written in the stars, it’s a Fact of Life and taken for granted, that it’s okay to sit and live a virtual hero-worshiping life through the television screen.

Of course, trolling from that kind of person is doubly ironic when it’s on a thread for movies that question the reality we take for granted around us.

Spoon BoyNov 12, 2003 at 8:38PM

Now that it’s been a week, it’s pretty interesting to see the reaction to Revs. Especially the negative stuff. It’s become pretty obvious that those who expected a Matrix Resolutions, answers to the questions posed in the first two films, will be eternally disappointed with the way things have been wrapped up.

Like any piece of abstract art, everything is there for you in the Matrix trilogy. In your face. Whether you get it or not is up to you. It’s not the artist’s responsibility to explain his work.

Message to the complainers:

If you had expected the W bros to spoon-feed us the answer, remember, there is no spoon. That’s the whole point. Get it?

“I thought you would’ve figured that out by now.”
—The Oracle

Joe KaczmarekNov 12, 2003 at 10:46PM

Here’s a thought for those who think that the last two movies are so bad compared to the first, and to those who think that they didn’t have it all planned out from the beginning….

What if the W bros did have it all planned out from the beginning? A very, very good story of which the first Matrix was just one-third of? With the first movie, the script probably didn’t get a lot of rewritting from the studio, as it was a first movie and (like all movies probably) a gamble for the studio. So, in the first movie we see the Ws’ full creative vision.

But, once the first one made tons of money, not only did the studio greenlight the sequels, but the studio also wanted to make sure that the sequels made lots of money as well. And what do studios think makes lots of money? Action, special-effects, dumbing a movie down for the least common denomenator and largest audience/market share.

Maybe that’s what happened with the second and third movies. Maybe the W bros creative vision got diluted through studio script rewrites and demands. Maybe?

FreonNov 13, 2003 at 2:31AM

Oracle: To help you to guide Neo. Now, since the real test for any choice is having to make the same choice again, knowing full well what it might cost - I guess I feel pretty good about that choice, ‘cause here I am, at it again.

Spoonboy, this statement has nothing to do with what doors previous Neo’s chose. She’s talking about why she had to change shells in the Matrix game. She helped Neo out in the 1st and 2nd movie, and because of this they came after her so she changed shells and is still helping Neo now. Get it.

Siddarta GouthamaNov 13, 2003 at 5:20AM

I have to partly agree with Freon, Spoon Boy, I don’t quite follow your reasoning behind it.
btw, enjoyed your review on jaced.com

Brian LNov 13, 2003 at 9:57AM

Hey Sparkane -

I was just reading an article in the telegraph on graphic novels and I saw this paragraph:

“In 1977, Dave Sim started a rudimentary sword-and-sorcery spoof about a belligerent, drunken, three-foot-tall grey aardvark. More than a quarter of a century later, Cerebus (Dave’s girlfriend couldn’t spell ‘Cerberus’) is still going strong – and there has evolved around him a pseudo-medieval world of such political and theological complexity, and such allusive density, that you occasionally forget the hero is, well, an aardvark.”

Seems I’mnot the only one. :)

DaveNov 13, 2003 at 11:31AM

Spoonboy: everything is happening as it happened before

But Smith says: everything is happening as it happened before. Well, not exactly as before.

I think this shows that this iteration is different. I agree that the Oracle’s line that they’ll see Neo again, along with the black cat, hints that the story isn’t over and that there might be a need for a savior again, but I still think that the end of revolutions is an outcome that hasn’t come about before.

Joe KaczmarekNov 13, 2003 at 11:51AM

Some thoughts bouncing in my head…

As mentioned earlier, yeah, maybe it is like a chess match between the Oracle and the Architect, and with each “reload” of the Matrix, they take another turn on the “board”, moving their pieces closer to endgame (Neo kept choosing the other door until this turn when the Oracle moved her “Trinity” piece into position). And now finally in this 6th version, it ended ith the Oracle saying “checkmate” (or just “check”, depends on how you think it ended) to the Architect.

As for the Oracle seeing the future, yeah, maybe it’s not that she can “see” the future, but can make really good guesses about what will happen. The Architect did say that she as an “intuitive program”. Maybe she’s a fuzzy logic program while he’s a rational logic program.

As for the Oracle knowing what is happening in the real world, and knowing that Trinity would fall in love with Neo… well, what if she doesn’t know what’s happening in the real world, but because the Zionites believe she has the give of prophacy, she can have sway over what they do. Maybe she didn’t see the future that Trinity would love Neo, but she made Trinity love Neo by putting the suggestion of it in Trinity’s mind. Even at the end of the first movie Trinity wasn’t sure that she loved Neo, until Neo died and everyone already believed him to be the One. [I might not be making my thinking on this clear enough, but think of Morpheus’s prophacy… maybe the Oracle didn’t “see” that Morpheus would find the One, but by telling him that he would, she ensured that Morpheus would look for the One harder than he would have otherwise, thus making sure that he would find Neo… I think the term is a self-fulfilling prophecy… again, it’s just ideas bouncing around an not definite in my head yet.]

sueNov 13, 2003 at 12:16PM

To Christopher Vaught

I own the Kybalion. I too noted above Neo’s use of the Logos. Think of the symbolism of the rainbow. There has been a lot of talk about Sati painting a rainbow in the sky for Neo at the end of the movie.

mavenNov 13, 2003 at 1:00PM

If Neo (one) is able to enter the Matrix without being plugged in, why does he need to be plugged in by the machines to battle Agent Smith in the finale?

Spoon BoyNov 13, 2003 at 1:30PM

Freon says:

this statement has nothing to do with what doors previous Neo’s chose. She’s talking about why she had to change shells in the Matrix game. She helped Neo out in the 1st and 2nd movie, and because of this they came after her so she changed shells and is still helping Neo now.

Interesting. It sounded to me that the choice she’s talking about is a choice she’s made since Reloaded. i.e. to help guide Neo out of limbo. If that’s the case, and she’s made the choice before, then Neo has been in limbo before. And he would not be in limbo unless he chose Door 2.

Anyhow, I have not played the game, so you’d be the expert on that one.

Dave says:

I think this shows that this iteration is different. I agree that the Oracle’s line that they’ll see

Different, but the same. Some things never change, and some things do.

The Architect: “…the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.”

Siddarta GouthamaNov 13, 2003 at 3:05PM

This is something that has been bothering me since I saw Reloaded.

From M1, I got the impression that all the Zionists are in glad expectation of the One to come as a saviour.
In Reloaded we see that Neo has obtained this status for several of them (“bless my Son aboard the Icarus…”, the gifts,…).
Yet, several Zionists (among which Zee e.g.), a lot of higher officials (Lock), several counsil members (Hamman) and ship captains or crew (Niobe,…) don’t believe in The One story.
How can we explain this? I’m not really sure.

Based on the story Morph is telling us in M1, The One was someone who was born inside the matrix , had tremendous powers of control and who freed the first people.
I’m not sure what this One is telling the freed ones, but surely, I would suspect that he is admired bigtime by the Zionists. Now consider 2 situations:
1. The One knows that after he dies, there will be a follow-up for him (e.g. the Oracle told him), than he would probably tell this to the Zionists. As a result, the Zionists would be believers of The One story and would of course regularly consult the Oracle.
This is however not the case, since few believe the One story.

2. The One doesn’t know of his follow-up. After his death, the Zionists are informed by the Oracle that there will be another dude with the same powers that will end the war. Now, if I were a Zionist in this sitation, man I would search me crazy for this guy to show up. As a captain or crew member, I would spread the “logos” (=word) so that everybody could rejoice and long for the coming of the ONe.
Yet, this is neither the case.

Even if we consider the counsil members - who are without a doubt part of the elder community of Zion and perhaps the first freed people (did Hamman have holes in his body?) - to be more knowledgeable on the One, since this is the guy who freed them, how come that counselor Hamman “does not understand the things you (Neo) do”.
Well he simply doesn’t know and is totally ignorant.

So what’s going on? Anyone is having an idea?

Another conflicting aspect is that in M1 Morph tells Neo that his people “are traveling the MAtrix in search of The ONe”. Yet, apart from Morph, I haven’t seen anyone of the captains that are really believing the ORacle’s story concerning The ONe. On the other hand, from “enter the matrix”, Niobe consults the oracle. Now does she believe in this future/fate crap of the Oracle or doesn’t she.?

This is certainly matter that needs to be further discussed, if not, I fear that the Zionists are having serious communication problems.

Just some questions I had.

JordanNov 13, 2003 at 3:08PM

I want to make a very clear distinction:

The are people who are referred to as “The One”
and one of those people is called Neo.

It is not the same One anymore then the 6 Buddhas are the same.
Previous “Ones” chose one of the doors. Neo is not doing anything again.

The arcitect says that he is the eventuality of an anomaly. That means that he is the one-in six billion+ who so perfectly DOESN’T fit in the Matrix that he can control it.

The last One, was the last One-in-Six Billion.

Everytime the Matrix “restarts” it doesn’t mean that the SAME people live out the SAME story! Again and again. This has no basis in the Movies and yet people keep on bringing it up.

Remember that the previous ones were “bound with humanity” which meant that they failed because of their desire to create the best outcome in a loose-loose situation.

Neo is unique in that he is only tied to Trinity which means that he makes a different choice then his predicessor and changes the story.


Also:Sati isn’t “Love” she is the mindfulness that comes through knowing one’s Karma. (It’s a Buddhist Pali term)

Her parents: Rama is a Matrix incarnation of the “Powerplant Operator of Recycling” i.e. he is the program that maintains the world. He is Vishnu incarnated as Rama ( I trust that y’all have read the Ramayana)

Kamala is a “Programer of Interfaces” Sounds like The Goddess Kamala who is the phenominal world that surounds us and filters the experience of the Atman.

Mindfulness is brought into the Matrix By Vishnu and the Goddess.

The rainbow that sati makes has a couple of conitations. Since Neo is returning to the source, he is probably undergoing the transition into the “Rainbow Body.” This is when a Buddha or Boddhisatva leaves the world by turning into a rainbow (leaving fingernails)

Another Rainbow symbol might be the story of Noah. Where the Rainbow signifies God’s new covanent to humanity that he will not destroy the world again.

Also, think about the rainbow in the Animatrix, don’t know if they are realted.

Best,
Jordan

JordanNov 13, 2003 at 3:13PM

Remember all those kids? The ones who in M1 were sitting in the waiting room bending spoons and watching movies about giant rabbits?

Those were other people who had been freed from the Matrix at a young age because they exhibited potential for being “The One.”

They must have been jacked in from other ships and from Zion. They were visitng the Oracle just like Neo was: To see if they were the One.

jordanNov 13, 2003 at 3:20PM

This is from early in this thread:
Martin says:
At the end of the movie, Smith remembers having done it all before - in exactly the same way as it is happening all around him at present - which is possibly the only decent bit of scriptwriting in the movie.

No.
Smith remembers having done it all before because he has the oracle inside of him feeding him bits of her vision of the future.
His daja Vu isn’t about previous matrixes (remember, previous matrices were completely different- think of the Merov’s thugs left over from a previous, more primative matrix)
He is acting jsut from what he thinks is the future, but it is a trap.

Martin, I think that reason that you and so many other feel conned by the movie is that you have a really odd idea of what’s happening in it.

If I thought that the Matrix is the SAME EACH TIME, then I would think the film is bunk too. But it’s doing something so much more sophisticated then that!

-J

sueNov 13, 2003 at 3:30PM

It’s evolving.

FreonNov 13, 2003 at 3:43PM

Siddarta Gouthama about your last comment.

Yes there are a lot of people that doubt that the One is real. This is for the same reason that today many people don’t believe in Christ. We were not there, we have only heard about him through stories, people tend to disbelieve what they don’t understand.

Many generations have gone by since the last One started Zion. It makes sense that some won’t believe.

MartinNov 13, 2003 at 5:02PM

jordan says:
Martin, I think that reason that you and so many other feel conned by the movie is that you have a really odd idea of what’s happening in it.

If I thought that the Matrix is the SAME EACH TIME, then I would think the film is bunk too. But it’s doing something so much more sophisticated then that!

What a pathetic, insulting answer. I have an odd idea of what’s happening?

Sophisticated?

If anyone has an odd idea about what’s happening in Reloaded and Revolutions, it’s the people who post messages debating every line and image of the movie to the point of meaningless psycho-babble.

We’re talking half-baked, childish philosophy here - and none of it means anything except more dollars for Joel Silver, the Ws and Warner Brothers.

So many people have fallen into this mad trap of assuming that the Wachowski brothers have been so intelligent about the plot and scripting of these two movies.

The Matrix was a great movie, with some cutting-edge special effects and some genuinely memorable and unexpected classic movie moments (the bug in Neo’s stomach, his awakening in the Matrix, “I know Kung Fu”, the dojo scene, “Guns, Lot’s of Guns”, the helicopter sequence, the Smith v Neo fight).

Reloaded tried hard to give us more of the same - and it worked.

We got nothing new, except a few questions and the promise of answers in a the final segment.

Revolutions was two hours of guys in armoured personnel vehicles shooting at the roof like a crappy video game, spouting corny dialogue, ripping off Aliens and Jedi along the way - and five minutes of promising script, followed by the worst ending since “phew it was all a dream”.

bobNov 13, 2003 at 5:34PM

OK, I’m lost… what from Aliens and Return of the Jedi is Revolutions ripping off?

JordanNov 13, 2003 at 5:49PM

Martin,

Please excuse my phrasing. I meant no disrespect with my word. Please let me clarify.

The odd coment was referring to the concept that the Matrix is the Same each time, with the same people, acting out the same simulatioin, with the same One (Neo). I find the concept extremely odd, concidering the overwhelming evidence that suggests that the simulation has been adapting.

Sue got what I meant by sophisticated. Not that you are NOT sophisticated, but that the Matrix is.

________________________________

I know you think that this is psychobable, but I desagree.

First of all, we know that the W brother’s are students of Buddhism, Hume, Beaudrillard, etc. We know that they made this as a comic book for fun. When they presented it to Warner Brothers, WB was relucant to make it because they thought audiences wouldn’t get. The W brothers said that they would have enough action film contect to keep veiwers interested.

Personally, I thought the first movie was really basic in it’s demonstration of postmodern simulacrum. The fact that they were albe to take the Postmodern image as all reallity as “Text” adapt hacker language to it, and tie it together with the Buddha’s solution of “from the veiw of sunyata form & emptyness are the same” i.e. that the only “Solution” is to stop trying to exit the Matrix but to live in it with awarness (Sati) and compassion.

The fact that the brothers crafted this as an intellectual game and then got lucky enought to actually make it means that it is not rediculus to examine the threads.

and “I know Kung Fu” is one of the reasons why M1 is such a poorer film then Reloaded or Revolutions.

“Nothing new?”

As a Postmodern Eco-Cyber-ethnographer (yes, that’s what I have my major in!) I have to say how grateful I am that the W brothers offer this solution to the paradox of simulacrum: by merging the crisis of Simulacra with the notion of emgracing our cyborg nature and turning the whell of Dharma rather then the wheel of Samsara (which includes the illusion that you can escape the Matrix.)

WinTimeNov 13, 2003 at 6:41PM

With the introduction of the word Trinity, the Wachowski Brothers have challenged us to consider God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. There is no escaping this fact, the question is why?

JordanNov 13, 2003 at 6:51PM

I’m just as inclined to think:
Psudo-Hindu: Creator-Maintainer-Destroyer
or
the Buddhist: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha
or
the Pegan: Maiden, Mother, Crone.

The W Brothers were students of architypal mythology. When you come from the architypal methological perspective, the “Trinity” calls you to think of all of those.

csNov 13, 2003 at 6:59PM

Hi

As an Indan I must point clarify about the word ‘Sati’

As mentioned it means a virtuous woman and there are many related meanings. This is the dominant use of Sati as a word and a name in India in the past and present. Sati is also used in the noun context for the practice of self immolation by the widow and this is what is referred to in the link http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/hindu/sati.htm.

It is quite likely that the choice of the name ‘Sati’ in the movie was based on the original meaning and the practice of “Sati’ is unrelated to her character in the movie. Even today when the word ‘Sati’ is used to describe a woman it speaks more of the character of the woman as opposed to this practice in which case it is mostly used in the noun form

cs

jordanNov 13, 2003 at 7:06PM

cs-
what about Sati’s sacrifice to Shiva and her rebirth as Parvati?
Might that be related to her death in the Matrix and then her rebirth in the new one with new powers?

RajNov 13, 2003 at 11:07PM

“Sati” is more of a generic term, (like “Her Majesty”) and it means a virtuous, persistant women, with exemplary devotion, love, and courage. There is a relevant tale of Sati in Hinduism - That of a woman called “Sati” Savitri who has so much love and devotion for her husband and at the same time courage, and strength that she literally chases, and confronts the angel of dealth (“Yama”) who is carrying away her husband’s soul. She finally succeeds in bringing him back to life. Ocstracized from the rest of the Matrix, Agent Smith tries to devour “Sati”, as he embodies exactly opposite things - hatefulness, frustration, envy, and a destructive rage.

-Raj

RajNov 13, 2003 at 11:08PM

“Sati” is more of a generic term, (like “Her Majesty”) and it means a virtuous, persistant women, with exemplary devotion, love, and courage. There is a relevant tale of Sati in Hinduism - That of a woman called “Sati” Savitri who has so much love and devotion for her husband and at the same time courage, and strength that she literally chases, and confronts the angel of dealth (“Yama”) who is carrying away her husband’s soul. She finally succeeds in bringing him back to life. Ocstracized from the rest of the Matrix, Agent Smith tries to devour “Sati”, as he embodies exactly opposite things - hatefulness, frustration, envy, and a destructive rage.

-Raj

JonNov 14, 2003 at 4:57AM

Not very good at all. Thankfully the first film stands on its own. This last one felt like an episode of Highway to Heaven.

Siddarta GouthamaNov 14, 2003 at 6:59AM

anyone has an idea what the license plate AA034 means, when Morph, trin and seraph are bringing Neo to the ORacle?

Siddarta GouthamaNov 14, 2003 at 6:59AM

anyone has an idea what the license plate AA034 means, when Morph, trin and seraph are bringing Neo to the ORacle?

Joe KaczmarekNov 14, 2003 at 7:12AM

Thought I’d answer this:

Renee says:
I just have a general stupid question. Why do they only have the emp’s on the ships? Why not use them in the actual city?

For the same reason Lock was so pissed off that the Hammer came back and blew its EMP: once an EMP is blown, you’ve got zero defenses until power can be restored (which, judging by how long it took to recharge the Logos, isn’t that short of a time).

Joe KaczmarekNov 14, 2003 at 7:20AM

Thought I’d answer this:

Renee says:
I just have a general stupid question. Why do they only have the emp’s on the ships? Why not use them in the actual city?

For the same reason Lock was so pissed off that the Hammer came back and blew its EMP: once an EMP is blown, you’ve got zero defenses until power can be restored (which, judging by how long it took to recharge the Logos, isn’t that short of a time).

stilland sometimesnot in thebigMNov 14, 2003 at 10:30AM

The Oracle is the believer who sees that the observer is just as important as the object. We see or measure what we are equipped to perceive. There are no fixed absolute answers for her just what we bring to the table ourselves. This is a pretty close approximation of the advance of physical theory since the enlightenment.

If the Architect is like einstein is the oracle is like Wheeler ? If so I agree. You have presented the best analysis of the films I’ve seen so far.

The good thing about this series is that it provokes so much discussion in the first place. As such, I say they were great films. Were they without flaws? of course not. Remember the message from the Wbros via the architect. The first matrix was perfect and the humans just could not accept it. I wonder would we have accepted a ‘perfect’ matrix series of films? Would would make it perfect and would all this discussion result?

I wanted to be surprised by revolutions and was not. Yet I am not disappointed. Having read a lot of the philosophical, metaphysical, scientific, and even science fiction, material the Ws draw on for these films, I never expected them to spell it all out or answer all the questions the previous films raised. I don’t even think they have answers themselves, more like questions. Though it would have been a pleasant surprise if they did answer the questioned raised. Instead they sort of beg the audience to decide for themselves. The matrix films are a good spring board for those who never consider these topics, it’s not the whole shebang. It’s not intended to answer the all life’s difficult questions including what is reality. Rather I think it’s to prompt us to question what it is and if so inclined to try to answer them ourselves. You know the free will issue. “make up your own damn mind” the oracle would say.

Ingrid

GhostNov 14, 2003 at 10:51AM

What is this talk about Sati painting a rainbow in the sky for Neo at the end of the movie. Is that true? If it is please hurry and post advising me. That has huge implications…..

GhostNov 14, 2003 at 10:58AM

And where in the Animatrix is there a raindow?

jerryNov 14, 2003 at 3:47PM

At the end of Revolutions, there are rainbow effects in the sky. Sati makes some remark to the Oracle about having done it for Neo.

JordanNov 14, 2003 at 8:00PM

Hey Ghost,

What are the implication?

Yes, Sati paints a rainbow for Neo…

AND

In the Animatrix story that takes place in Tokyo with the woman with the lost cat and begins and ends with the musically streetlights at Shibuya Intersection.

When she runs into the kids who tell her about the haunted house, they get up on a fense and look at where it is off it the distance. There is a rainbow ubove the spot and the kids say “It’s probably raining there again” or something like that… The rainbow apears where teh Matrix is mistakenly simulating rain on a supposed to be sunny day.

Ghost, do you see a deeper meaning in all of this?

sueNov 14, 2003 at 8:26PM

Here is a site I found with a lot of different cultures’ views of the rainbow. It can go even deeper than this.

sueNov 14, 2003 at 8:28PM

The link didn’t work for me! Sorry, I’m not real techie with computer. You can just try typing in the word rainbowmaker. There are a few sites. The one I was talking about is religious myths.

sueNov 14, 2003 at 8:33PM

www.rainbowmaker.us/frrelig.htm

sueNov 14, 2003 at 8:35PM

It worked! That’s the site.

katNov 14, 2003 at 10:27PM

Hi. I was a VFX artist on Revolutions.

Of course, I’d like to know what you thought of the effects. But I’d also like to know if you folks think that there was a good balance between effects and story.

In my opinion, the effects are there to support the story. But it seems to me that in this case, the story has been contorted to accomodate effects.

Neither is necessarily better than the other. In the end, it’s what the audience wants that matters. (At least, that’s what the business of filmmaking dictates.)

So what do you guys want? Effects that support the story? Or a story that accomodates effects? I’m really, really interested in your thoughts on this issue.

Nature BoyNov 14, 2003 at 10:33PM

As is the case with all sci-fi movies that have followed, the Matrix owes a lot to “Forbiden Planet,” which was a loose adaptation of Shakespear’s “The Tempest.” The machine (Robbie the robot) created by Dr. Morbius, with the help of the imparted knowledge of the Krell, was programmed to protect him and his daughter from harm. When asked by Morbius to destroy the invisible “monster from the id” that was attacking their home, Robbie short circuited and could not obey because the monster was in fact the evil alter ego of Morbius himself. The paradox is resolved when Morbius realizes that the monster is his own evil self and his love for his daughter reults in his own self sacrafice and his ultimate self destruction. The question arises then, was love a necessary element in the triumph of good over evil which brought about an end to the conflict between man and machine in “The Matrix III?” Was Neo’s love for Trinity necessary for him to overcome the evil Smith? Was Smith really Neo’s evil alter ego and was the only way Neo could destroy Smith to realize that he must allow himself to be destroyed? Neo shed his ego and triumphed. It’s as simple as that. As long as we hold on to our ego’s and think that we are somebody, we are destined to face conflict. Conclusion: We can still learn a thing or two from ole Will Shakespear.

Nature BoyNov 14, 2003 at 11:08PM

Kat, did you design Persnickity’s dress? That may just have been the best special effect in the movie! Just kidding. Sometimes these postings get a little to serious for me and I need to break the tension.

ScottNov 14, 2003 at 11:22PM

So what do you guys want? Effects that support the story? Or a story that accomodates effects? I’m really, really interested in your thoughts on this issue.

I am sure almost everyone would agree that the effects should support the story, not the other way around. I actually feel the Matrix movies have done a good job of making the effects serve the story. Of course with anything as ambitious and cutting edge as “The Matrix” you will get some critics who say it is largely a showcase for CG. I disagree.

In “The Matrix”, the groundbreaking “bullet-time” effects supported the mind-bending premise of the movie that made us question what we thought we knew. In “Reloaded”, we had the swarm of Smiths that drove home the idea that he now possesses virus-like qualities. Other scenes reinforce the extent of Neo’s evolving powers.

In “Revolutions”, the only scene I thought might have been done more for the effects than the story was the Last Stand of Zion, which seemed drawn out longer than necessary and filled with extra footage of the mechs mowing down waves of squiddies. The final battle I thought portrayed nicely the superhero-esque qualities of the story and was reminiscent of anime and graphic novels.

Overall, the series has done a remarkable job of weaving in advances in CG and effects with a cool storyline. It has largely avoided the pitfall of doing effects just for effects’ sake, a trap the Star Wars movies have been known to blunder into. Other sci-fi films that made the story take a back seat to the effects were “Independence Day” and “Starship Troopers”, and “The Matrix” trilogy is of course in a whole different class from those duds.

Kat, what did you work on in the movie? Any anecdotes or insights you can share with us?

HarryNov 15, 2003 at 3:34AM

Yes, Kat, are u allowed to tell us which VFX company u work for? I saw at least 8 big FX houses listed in the credits roll, which was probably more than for M2, right? It must have been a nightmare to get all the work from all the different comppanies to be consistent and blend in nicely with the rest of the work.
In any case, most of it was quite cool. Like most others, I’d say the FX have to be there to support the story, i.e., the plot matters above anything else. And yes, sometimes there can be overkill, cases where one keeps asking, what’s the point? For example, in Pearl Harbor, we got to see dozens of shots of Japanese planes dropping torpedos/bombs from all possible angles. Good a few times, not too good when done over a dozen times. Sometimes, the sentinels attacking Zion felt a bit like that, dragging on and on, and when one considers that the attack was only on the two upper levels of what is a huge underground city of 250,000 people, somehow, it’s a bit too much. The story matters. I mean, Joel Silver goes around bragging about how much was spent doing the biggest VFX showpiece of the movie (the attack on Zion, I thin), but can he brag about the story? No, he can’t.
If we fans can ask questions like why this or why that happened, especially when we think logic is being defied, then we wonder why the directors or production designers and writers did not ask the same questions when putting the movie together?

HarryNov 15, 2003 at 3:36AM

kat, one more question, any insights or info on scenes that might have been cut from the movie or whose concepts might have drastically been changed from concept to final rendering (rewritten scenes)?

Myles KovenNov 15, 2003 at 10:53AM

Neo was Jesus

Nature BoyNov 15, 2003 at 11:34AM

So I guess that means Councillor Hamann was Ben Gurion

FreonNov 15, 2003 at 12:35PM

Maybe they want you to ask those questions, Harry. And when it comes to logic, who’s are we talking about? Yours, mine or theirs. I think the story is just fine. It could be better, but I can say that about any movie ever made. It could be better but I’m happy with what I got. Better than nothing.

ArunNov 15, 2003 at 2:47PM

Hi !
For those of u, who are interested in reading more about HINDUISM and it’s relationship with Quantum Mechanics, u may check out the
following sites. U will get some insight. After all, the Matrix is all about quantum mechanics (about being everywhere and nowhere) !

http://www.dreams-genes.info/meaning_of_maya.htm
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_hinduism/96.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Hinduism-Hindu.htm
http://www.hinduism.co.za/newpage1.htm

For general hindu philosophy, check out :

http://www.krishna.com
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Hindu_Cosmology.htm

I loved the Matrix series. Since I am a physicist as well as a
computer programmer, it was candy for me. At least it is a movie
wherein we are compelled to rack our brains to understand it and also compells us to think of who we really are and why we are here.

I do hope that the Wa bros write a book on it explaining all the unexplained.
And that might be the day, this forum ends. Or else…..

Email me u’r comments or questions regarding Hindu philosophy (if any) at
[email protected]

Arun.

tozéNov 15, 2003 at 4:15PM

damn, i’m thinking… the ws are gonna go george lucas on us and release another three movies 10 years from now, explaining what happened before the “first”. hehe.

RayneNov 15, 2003 at 4:55PM

I am so glad to see so many of the commenters from the Reloaded thread here again. Couldn’t see the movie until this weekend, avoided reading here because of spoilers; I’ve been watching the comment count mount and was terrified I wouldn’t make it in here before this racked up a thousand comments! Really good stuff here — I think it’s richer, deeper than it was for Reloaded. Maybe it’s because much of the guessing has been removed…?

After seeing all three movies, I believe the entirety of the trilogy wrestles with the question of agency.

What is it and do humans truly possess it? Many really don’t, based on predefined parameters set by the bounds of environment and genetics.

It was apparent in Revolutions there were three parties at war — there were machines, platform independent programs, and humans. Each of these entities operate within bounds. It is only through chaos (represented by Oracle’s power to provide unbalance) that agency becomes necessary — in this case, agency is “born” by the mother of chaos to become the iteration yielding Neo.

I was puzzled by the use of the word “karma”, since at the time it was used by the Oracle it was really “dharma” that was implied. (Dharma being one’s destiny, or path for which they were designed/destined.)

It came together for me at the end of the movie: karma really means choice, not fate. We get what we choose, hence the common misperception that karma means fate. Karmic excercise, or choice, explains why the Oracle said we cannot see beyond a choice — there is no fate beyond one’s exercise of free agency.

My understanding is that Neo, unlike the previous five iterations of the One, actually exercised agency by choosing something other than the predefined doors 1 or 2. Choosing door 1 or 2 would not have been agency since it was limited in nature, bounded.

There are myriad opportunities along the trilogy to revel in the exercise of agency: the blue pill versus the red pill, Cypher’s wish to reject the ugliness that comes with having to choose, door 1 or 2, even choosing to take time to gather one’s thoughts instead of doing what is expected. Choice, karma, agency at work.

Great stuff, in spite of the beautiful excesses of Revolutions; when do we ever have a chance to talk about the intrinsic nature of humanity across multiple cultures and religions?

C.H.Nov 15, 2003 at 5:01PM

There will be another Matrix film. It will follow up to your questions and only propose more. If you listen to the Oracle she admits Neo will return. Now that the captured minds are to be set free the machines will have little purpose. They must now figure a way to create energy to ‘survive’.

katNov 15, 2003 at 5:49PM

Interesting and thoughtful comments, thank you all. To answer a few questions, I worked for ESC Entertainment. I am not aware of any major plot lines that were dropped from the script; this movie was expensive to make and they nail things down early so that money isn’t wasted in production.

I worked on the sequences regarding the war on Zion, so, contrary to what Harry and Scott say, I thought that part of the movie was really cool. I worked with an amazingly talented team, and we worked very hard on it; we put in eighty and ninety hour weeks at the end.

All in all, I regret that I did not enjoy these last two movies as much as I enjoyed the first one. With the exception of the death of Trinity, I did not find myself caring about the characters. And I found some of the dialogue to be cheesier than a plate of fettucine alfredo. However, I’m not exactly in the demographic, so what do I know?

Scott, I must disagree with your argument that many of the effects served to perpetuate the story. I did think bullet time was cool, but I felt that the agent smith sequence in the second film went on far too long. The first film had a clean focus; we identified with Neo, we were confused and intrigued like he was, and the audience got to discover the world of the Matrix along with him.

I feel that these last two movies have been constructed with one eye on opportunities to dazzle the audience with effects. I’m not going to complain about that; it keeps me employed! But while the effects truly were dazzling (in my extremely biased opinion), I wasn’t as taken with the plot in the last two movies as I was with the first.

But like I said before, I’m not in the demographic. And it sounds like you folks really really enjoyed it, or at least have been provoked by it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here talking about it. I’m delighted about that. Above all, I feel fortunate that I got to be a part (albeit a small one) of something that is of such interest to so many.

Joe KaczmarekNov 15, 2003 at 8:40PM

Just saw it again today… and I loved at the beginning how they showed that there was another level, that below the level of matrix code there was another (and more complex than matrix code) level of fractal code.

But, when it zoomed out past that, and showed the city built of matrix code, when it zoomed out past the city, there was this single odd character which kind of looked like horns.

Does anybody know what this symbol or character is?

JonathanNov 16, 2003 at 12:14AM

Revolutions is pure zen budhism. The only way to win is to let go of the attachment to the struggle. Neo embraces Smith, the worst and inevitable part of himself. Only in that is it defeated and disappears. His love for Trinity gets him to the final battle, but only he can now fight the true fight for peace alone, which always must first be won by being recognciled with the worst part of yourself. When the inner war is over, the outer battle ends too. The Oracle did the same, and her dominant program survives to enjoy the peace. It is the feminine side of the creator that will lead to peace. Love and choice are the footsteps to peace.

HarryNov 16, 2003 at 1:06PM

Joe has a great point there. One thing I loved about both M2 and M3 was the openings where the matrix code dissolves into something in the real or matrix world. When I saw M3 a second time, I did also noticed that the code-city was part of one single character within a larger-scale code strip, and it made me wonder, a bit like the endings of both Men In Black movies. Microcosm vs macrocosm and stuff. But yes, there is a weird horned character in there. Most of the matrix code is made up of Roman alphanumeric characters, with a few Japanese katakana ideograms (most of them reversed/flipped) thrown in to make it look exotic. But the horned character, which is briefly highlighted, is unique. I too wonder what it means. Wonder if it appears elsewhere in the movies… Must check that out.

K.Nov 16, 2003 at 1:14PM

On the subject of the subcode, this can relate to string theory, where by everything is made up off tiny vibrating strings. In, the real world everything is made up of atoms, which are made from quarks and string theory proposes that they are are made up from strings. In the matrix everything is made up of code and the code is made from subcode. It’s a very interesting idea and I wonder if the Wachowskis had added a hint of string theory into the movies.

I watched the movies again today and I still can’t bring myself to really complain about it. The Matrix movies are filled with some much candy. I love it.

I also was also deeply interested in the idea of the Equation. A scientific equation attempting to balance itself, changing the independant variables to bring everything back into balance. Nice.

RyanNov 16, 2003 at 4:01PM

I think that in the movie when the saying, “Everything that has a bagining has an end.” Might also refer to the peace made among humans and machines. As in the time of peace will have an ending. But the whole philisophical idea of the movie was amaizing.

DaanishNov 16, 2003 at 4:46PM

Hey everyone,
Your thoughts are great and are a continued source of entertainment for me when I’m bogged down in work. Thanks a lot!

Here’s just a quick thing I noticed in two viewings of the movie that I’m not sure has been pointed out:

When Trinity sees the blue sky in the real world she says only one word: “Beautiful.”

When the Oracle sees the Sky created by Sati at the very end she also says, “Beautiful.”

What are your thoughts? I don’t think its a coincidence as most scripts are written with each word having meaning (not just the Wachowskis, any decent scriptwriter). At its most basic level I think its serves to tell the viewer that perhaps Machines and Humans are not so different. They appreciate a beautiful sky that had previously never been there in exactly the same way.

K.Nov 16, 2003 at 4:53PM

Smith and Neo are both very powerful, not so different. They are also each other’s opposites…but at least the continues your train of thought

elmoNov 16, 2003 at 8:33PM

hello,

this is all been so fun to read. i was just thinking that in the superman battle, at the end Neo allows himself not to be written over by Smith, but by THE ORACLE inhabiting Smith’s shell. so was she alone the all powerful program, or was it this merging with Neo that allowed the defeating of Smith? personally i tihnk that the Oracle is the all powerful overlord of the Martix, playing it as someone said above, like a giant chessboard.

also, someone mentioned the “grandfather paradox” of the Terminator movies. anyone want to expand on that? (not a huge fan, but willing to be converted.)

ZenMasterSmithNov 16, 2003 at 10:10PM

I didn’t have time to read all of this, but how did the Oracle end up in the puddle at the end?

I understand the virus/cookie explanations. But if Agent Smith was infected by a cookie through Neo, then why didn’t he look like Neo in the puddle (or the original Oracle’s shell)? That’s interesting, but I think it misses the point.

I think that when Smith took over the Oracle, she inhabitted part of him, forcing part of him into Neo should he ever have the chance, and her remnants survived. That’s why she stayed in her apartment, to be “found” and subsequently to infect Smith.

Maybe that’s why the Macine decided to pull the plug on the infected Neo, because is realized that the core essence of Smith was in Neo. I think part of the essence of Smith has to be in Neo because otherwise Neo is just a facsimile of Smith after Neo’s surrender to infection, and killing the facsimilie wouldn’t destroy the original.

SpinboyNov 17, 2003 at 3:08AM

I may have missed this, but I didnt see anyone touch on this one: When Smith repeats the Oracles’ words to Neo “Everything that has a beginning must have an end”, a realization comes over him…a realization that he cannot defeat smith by fighting him, because Smith is his exact negative, yet equal. But once a program has completed it’s purpose, it no longer has a purpose and will be deleted. So, when Neo allows Smith to take him over, Smith no longer has a purpose, and the chain-reaction of Smith virus-deletion is a glorious act of cleansing that would make Norton proud. But I still cant explain how Neo, supposedly human was able to display Matrix-like powers in the Matrix, and in the “real” world. The only other being able to do that was Smith, a program. In M1, we also saw Neo moving as fast as only the other programs could, much to everyone’s surprise. This leaves me with one baffling question….could Neo, also be a program???? Hmmmmmmmmm………………

SpinboyNov 17, 2003 at 3:17AM

One more thing to the above…as soon as Neo lets Smith take him over, his (Neo’s) purpose is done, and he’s the first to explode (delete), then subsquently the Smith virus is deleted as it no longer has a purpose. What do you guys think?

SpinboyNov 17, 2003 at 3:40AM

OK, I know it’s late and I really need to go to bed, but I wanted to share a link that I just stumbled upon which explains quite a bit, including my suspicions above. http://forums.matrixfans.net/showthread.php …

Timothy TanNov 17, 2003 at 7:52AM

I have been mulling over this since M2, so here’s my observation.

There are a lot of trinities in this trilogy.
M1 - Christianity (Gnostic?)
M2 - Buddhism
M3 - Hinduism

M1 - Released Easter (Christian)
M2 - Released Vesak Day (Buddhist)
M3 - Can’t figure this one out

M1 - About nature of reality
M2 - About nature of determinism & free will
M3 - About nature of humanity (love/choices we make)
* Note: these are the 3 deepest questions in all of philosophy. I had at first predicted that the final film would be about the nature of consciousness, but I guess that’s handled by the Brain in a Vat issues brought about my M1.

What else can we pick out?

ReinierNov 17, 2003 at 8:46AM

About the Symbol:

http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/05/0518.html

It means Mercury and also love (if I understand it correctly).

michaelNov 17, 2003 at 11:28AM

The Mercury symbol makes almost no sense, until you start investigating it.

From the dictionary: “…used in medicine in the free state as in blue pill…” [emphasis mine]

Indeed if you keep digging you find all sorts of ties, such as to Hinduism, and its Tantric ties with Siva (Shiva) and/or the semen of Siva. Its alchemical properties, its relationship with gold, the moon, purification.

This article is enlightening: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/feite.html

A particularly interesting paragraph is the following:

“In Rasa Shastra, the Art of Tantric alchemy, Mercury is considered as a living substance—a living being. In the process of preparation it goes through all of the same processes as the sadhaka who seeks liberation, and the child or soul who seeks incarnation. First the mercury is `awakened’, made `hungry’, it is `fed’, made to `swoon’, and lastly `killed’. `Killing’ refers to incineration in the symbolism of the Twilight Language. More than mere symbolism, the preparation of Mercury is the preparation for enlightenment itself, the true Gold of the Wise.”

In an earlier comment David mentioned the soundtrack piece “Neodammerung” meaning “Twilight of Neo”. Seems apropos.

I again have to go back to Neo’s white light. I had a sort of revelation that Neo used the light of the machines to purify the Matrix. I had originally thought that the machine city pumped their light through him, but I now believe it was Neo. And I am going to backpeddle on my misunderstanding of why Neo had to be jacked in at the end. I believe it was the only way for him to utilise the light of the machine city.

Lastly, on a different note, to those contemplating whether there were previous iterations of Trinity or not—Where else would Door #2 have led? If Option #1 was to “do the right thing” and return to the source, what was Option #2? Without the conflicting choice, what’s the point of the 2 doors for previous Neos?

sueNov 17, 2003 at 1:26PM

Everything has a beginning and an end. “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” The beginning and the end.

LoadtheconstructNov 17, 2003 at 2:25PM

I am amazed at how the Matrix has affected the very aspects of my life. I wake up and feel incomplete, everday. I have one thing for all of you to remember: Do not hate life itself, hate the life you are making yourself live.

K.Nov 17, 2003 at 2:50PM

Back to the point why the Oracle was in the puddle. You see when Smith takes over people he inherits part of them, thus allowing his program to grow, that is why he says ‘cookies need love, like everything does’ because that Smith was Sati(sp?). The Oracle was in the puddle because the Smith that was fighting Neo was the Smith-Oracle, like Smith-Sati and Smith-Neo. It’s my understanding that the Oracle was able to influence Smith, to tell Neo what he must do next (we must remember that the Oracle allowed herself to be taken, and that she is a very powerful program), to end his existance, to end the One. What happens is that Neo actually infects Smith and the machines use what ever power it is they use to destroy Smith from the inside.

I’m also under the impression that Neo is dead, and that the One will return as the equation continues to run.

OreoNov 17, 2003 at 10:20PM

I’ll get to the point since this is my first time here and i have no intention of reading all these posts…

1-I generally liked all three movies, sometimes for reasons (like geo-political) that have no business being discussed here…

2-Like I stated above, i didn’t read all posts. None i read had mentioned Seraph (spelling?)yet, so chew on this a bit (if you haven’t already). The first time we saw Neo in code was the end in M3 and he was gold. So was Seraph in M2. I think Seraph was a former “One”. That’s why Neo couldn’t so much as lay a hit on him when they fought (and vice versa), and why he (Seraph) got a wink-wink,nudge-nudge look from the Oracle when Sati asked if Neo would be seen again. He’s a protector of “that which matters most” (exactly the same words of dialouge for morpheus when describing Zion/Humanity). I think ol’ Seraph was the last “One” to choose the “Breeding Stock Humans” for Zion 6. That’s my plot twist contribution for this board, hopefully you enjoy it…

3- Lastly, I don’t get you people who post on boards like this for a movie you hate. Explain this to me, please. I can see not liking something so much that you come home, see a positive review online, it asks for posts, you say you hated it, and be done with it…but two, three, seven, 10 posts? Getting into an argument with someone online? That’s pretty sad. That’s why i chose not to read the rest of the post here on this board. Check it—I HATE the Star Wars Prequels because they are HORRIBLE, but I chose to come to this board about a set of movies i liked to trade ideas instead of going to Starwars-lover.net and stating over and over that I could have written better dialouge for those prequels. Here’s the acid test- I knew in my heart of hearts that I had no intention of seeing any Jurassic Park sequels(or Star Wars 3 for that matter), if you negative posters KNOW in your heart that you would see a 3rd matrix sequel if released, then respectfully, I say shut up. I’d also like to state that i read many-a-post of Reloaded-haters writing hate posts about Revolutions…posting A LOT about Revolutions…that’s sad.

michaelNov 17, 2003 at 10:45PM

Oreo said:
“The first time we saw Neo in code was the end in M3 and he was gold.”

Incorrect. The first time we see Neo in code is in Reloaded. Perhaps you missed the part where he removes the bullet from Trinity then brings her back to life. He is not gold.

And Seraph has been mentioned numerous times here. You might try something like ‘Ctrl+F’ for a quick scan of the page next time, but hey, you’ve been mahvelous; a real stellar contribution. Thanks for playing.

MelpomeneNov 18, 2003 at 12:50AM

As an avid reader but first-time poster of both this and the Reloaded thread/s, I’d like to share some of my gut reactions on first watching Revs (have seen it twice now):

* The battle scene in the Dock, the efforts of Zee and her counterpart, the terrible attrition rate of the APU corps, and Lock’s pessimism/realism, all ground into my consciousness the overwhelming might of the machines and their unstoppable potential to crush Zion out of existence. While some have found these action scenes to be a bit superficial or uninvolving, I felt they demonstrated the relentless grind of history. There comes a point when philosophical speculation will only take you so far - the immediacy of the attack on Zion crystallized all problems down to a matter of life or death.

* Sati seems to me to be the highest creation AI has achieved - a program beyond the basic instrumentalism of purpose, created out of love. Her parents make the sacrifice (implied in her name) of not being with her in order to ensure her survival.

* Commander Lock is ‘locked in’ to a practical/rational viewpoint. The battle for Zion is a battle of tactics between him and the machines. He cannot accept that Neo has the ability to transcend reason, and therefore the ability to find a solution outside the adversarial relationship between humanity and the machines.

* Oracle vs. Architect
The Oracle doesn’t really know the future, but she is prepared to embrace uncertainty and change, whereas the Architect requires mathematical perfection and certainty. I think her powers of ‘prediction’ are based on her understanding of the human psyche, and her ability to work out each individual’s most likely responses to a given situation. (It also seems that programs can ‘read’ things from people’s Matrix avatars, eg. Rama looks at Neo and ‘sees’ that he is in love, Persephone has no trouble realising that Neo and Trin are in love - something in their code which gives it away?)

* The Neo/Smith battle seemed to reflect Jungian psychology - only by confronting one’s Shadow and accepting it as part of oneself can it be defeated. Neo couldn’t beat Smith, the only way he could destroy him was from the inside out, and it was Smith who actually facilitated this by absorbing Neo - due to his rampant and nihilistic will Smith caused his own downfall. It is the Oracle, speaking through Smith, who shows Neo that some part of him will remain after being absorbed by Smith, and that this is therefore the only way to beat him (links back to her conversation with Neo in her kitchen when she says of her own new shell that while some things have changed, the fundamentals remain. This also ties in with Niobe and Morpheus saying some things change, some don’t).

* Neo’s loss of eyesight/gaining of electrovision
When Neo loses his eyesight his link with the normal human world is weakened. After the Logos crashes he is entranced by the golden vision of the Machine City, and doesn’t realise at first that Trin is dying. Losing Trinity severes his last tie with normality - he in in the Machine City, a place no human has entered for a century or more, and he inhabits a realm of golden energy (is this how the machines perceive things?).

* The huge and seemingly invincible array of defences around the Machine City indicates that they will never again allow themselves to be subject to human domination. And while the machines have in the past kept both the Matrix and Zion under their control, the Smith factor is a new variable, and they need Neo to defeat it. Truce, and some form of co-operation, open up new ground in the humanity/machine relationship.

What do you think?

HarryNov 18, 2003 at 8:53AM

Melpomene - well said. For a while I kept thinking that Neo might still be alive at the end of M3 and the machines were sending him back to be plugged, but now it’s clear to me that by balancing the equation, no Smith means no more Neo. His function is over. The 3 movies tell his story, and that’s why both before and after the Thomas Anderson version of the One has come and gone, the matrix is still there. Things will be different after M3, not radically different but changed. The ultimate goal of Neo in M3 is peace (truce), not final victory over the machines. Just look at the machine city, how can the remaining humans possibly defeat that?

Christopher VaughtNov 18, 2003 at 1:56PM

Did anyone else notice that M2 and M3 were released nearly simultaneous to the two Lunar Eclipses this year?

Also…could someone help me to understand the significance of the scene in M2 where the Control Room docking the ships in Zion was a Matrix-like simulation and was bright white. My feeling is that I have overlooked something very important.
Thanks.

jordanNov 18, 2003 at 2:25PM

This may seem crazy,

But could Smith be Adam Smith (the early promoter of Capitalism)?

Maybe he is Capital: He starts out as just a control mechanism in the systems, but he wants more, wants out, wants the distruction of humankind.

He is the product of the Matrix over compensating for Neo.
He becomes a virus and overwhelms the entire system.

If the Matrix is the phenominal universe and Zion nirvana, then smith represents the distruction of the earth in the name of illusion.

In recent years, Capital has made a very similar shift from Free Market Captialism, to Keysien (sp?) economics, to Neoliberalism. This is causing the process of capital to commodify the entire universe and turn it into more capital.

Just a thought…probably nothing…

eyehandNov 18, 2003 at 3:51PM

To paraphrase Shakespeare, Matrix - Revolutions was ” full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

No questions answered.
Nothing resolved.
Two hours and $10 wasted.

If the machines were really intelligent they would have just dropped a couple of nukes into Zion.

It would have ended the pain for all of us much faster.

LoadtheconstructNov 18, 2003 at 4:41PM

Hey, we should all be proud to be ‘nerds’.

This movie has impacted people on an intellectual level that has surpassed many other sci-fi films.

I am depressed, though, that M3 did not return answers to a jungle of those that were introduced throughout M2.

I should propose this: Neo is alive. He opens his ‘blinded eyes’ to see the thermal view he has been seeing the last half of M3.
Thoughts?

jkottkeNov 18, 2003 at 5:15PM

Hey all. I’m closing this thread for a little bit while I do a bit of site maintenance. I will reopen it when I am done.

jkottkeNov 18, 2003 at 5:39PM

Alright, comments are back up.

MelpomeneNov 18, 2003 at 9:22PM

Harry, thanks for your response. I agree, there’s no way that humanity will be able to defeat the machines by force. I love it that we don’t really know if Neo is alive or dead at the end, but I agree that ‘his work is done’, and you’d hope that he has found some peace of his own.

Daanish said: When Trinity sees the blue sky in the real world she says only one word: “Beautiful.” When the Oracle sees the Sky created by Sati at the very end she also says, “Beautiful.”

I reckon that scene where the sun briefly shines on Trin’s face, the first human to have seen the sky for centuries, before she plunges back into the ‘desert of the real’, is like a glimpse at another existence. Trinity’s sacrifice is necessary now so that in some far-distant time maybe the blackened EMP sky will be cleared. And through her intuition and understanding of the human psyche, the Oracle can also appreciate things like beauty and love. So I think you’ve made a good point - that there is potential for ‘cross-cultural’ understanding between humans and programs. As a side comment, though, I’d like to add that I think the AI of the squiddies, agents, and even Deus Ex Machina is very different to human intelligence - sort of Borg hive-mind as opposed to individual consciousness.

Michael said: Lastly, on a different note, to those contemplating whether there were previous iterations of Trinity or not—Where else would Door #2 have led? If Option #1 was to “do the right thing” and return to the source, what was Option #2? Without the conflicting choice, what’s the point of the 2 doors for previous Neos?

The previous Ones’ (not previous Neos) choice would perhaps revolve around whether to believe the Architect or not, or whether to possibly sacrifice themselves by stepping into the unknown of the Source. But I’m sure that each previous One did have to make a choice, and that each chose Door 1. There were no previous versions of Trinity, as the Architect said that Neo was the first One to experience love on a personal level.

Thank God the comments are back up, that 24 minutes was hell!!

DaanishNov 19, 2003 at 7:06PM

What happened? No New Threads! What will I do with my time?!

In either case I saw the movie 2 weeks ago today and still can’t stop thinking about it. Makes my life seem so boring! Ahhh, the power of movies.

buddhaNov 19, 2003 at 9:09PM

i think we really do need to look at the hinduism and how Quantam mechanics play an important role in trying to understand our soul, and purpose on this planet…

Hinduism, never attempted to say that there was a big white haired god living in the sky, the answer was always in science, and quantam mechanics.

more here..

Hinduism is the only religion that propounds the idea of life-cycles of the universe. It suggests that the universe undergoes an infinite number of deaths and rebirths.

Nature BoyNov 19, 2003 at 9:26PM

This is getting to sound a little too much like Let’s Make a Deal. So does that mean that if The Architect is Monty Hall, The Oracle is Wink Martindale? I dont think so!! Let’s not get carried away with too much over analysis as it will lead to absurdity. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the trip. Some of you have way too much time on your hands but I must say that using your brains in this way if far better the vegging out in front of the tube watching stupid football. Watching game shows as a kid though obvioulsy gave me something to contribute here, so may TV isn’t all that bad.

DaanishNov 19, 2003 at 11:23PM

There is nothing wrong with watching too much football. NOTHING. I watch more than my fair share of football, and I watch (rewatch) more than my fair share of the Matrix Trilogy. There is NOTHING wrong with watching too much football. Go Buckeyes. I apologize, that will be the last waste of server memory on my account.

OrshNov 20, 2003 at 4:03AM

Hi guys,

After watching Revolutions, the question in my mind was: OK, happy end or not? Of course, I would have preferred good. So after reading this thread and a lot of the previous one (took me 2 days! :) the following thoughts came to me:

- some of us were disappointed, because the machines were not destroyed. Take into consideration though the conversation b/w NEO and the councillor in Reloaded when they talk about how interdependent humans and machines are. Also, what would happen to the people still in their pods if the Matrix was destroyed all at once? It would only result in everybody’s death (their minds make it real, right?) And when Neo meets the indian “people” at the train station I think he also realises that maybe some of the software is also worth preserving (if they can have such “noble” feelings). So I think these are the reasons why the machines are not destroyed in the end. (Somebody actually pointed out in the previous thread that the best solution would be a compromise).

- The whole story I think in part shows the “awakening” of Neo personally. (“Wake up”, etc.) By the end he really does and realises that the only barrier in front of us is only in our own minds (Free your mind, There’ no spoon, etc. - true for the real world as well - u can do anything if you free your mind.) In the end he’s enlightened, I think partly that’s what all the light around him is about.

- As for him as the “saviour” he sacrifices himself for the people, and I think he IS different from the previous Ones because of his love for Trinity and actually it does make a difference (as Keanu Reeves said in an interview: “It might sound goofy, but it is all about love”.) And maybe if we consider the parallel b/w Neo and Jesus we can say that when the Oracle says he’ll be probably back she means, to free all the people. Jesus is prophecised to be back, right? (can anyone take this parallel further, I’m not that familiar with the Bible..)

- And it was the Oracle’s task originally to ensurethe Matrix survives. That’s why she was created. Maybe she realized that the constant fighting takes up too much energy and it would be better for the machines as well if they could coexist. The Architect for example did not want that, he was programmed to rule, to keep the subjects under control. But in the end, he has to admit, that the Oracle “won” (she might have created agent Smith to be a virus).

- So I think in the future humans and machines will start to cooperate, find alternative sources of energy for the A.I. (as they say, they would accept it - I believe machines are not “evil”, they just responded the attack of humans) and gradually free people from the Matrix. Maybe that’s also why Neo will still be needed in the future, to facilitate the process if it gets stuck because of the selfishness of either party.

- Love was now kinda integrated to the A.I with Neo going in to the Source. Sati might represent a new generatiuon of software that understand love and human values. (His father’s name refers to a king that promised to take only one wife = love, loyalty, etc.)

Well, this is the picture I put together. Let me know what you think.

Nikki MurrayNov 20, 2003 at 6:54AM

hi. I thought the matrix revolutions was ace! I seen reloaded one first cause was dragged along by my boyfriend and came out so confused! Went to see revolutions and I cried so much. All the guys moaning about all the love scenes, they get all the fighting so it’s nice to have something for us girls! Right? I thouhgt the ending was good once I got thinking about it, Neo couldn’t have lived on without Trinity! It wouldn’t be the same, there happy now together. If they had both lived it would have been so typical and very unrealistic really! I have since seen revolution again and bought the other 2 also, I can’t wait till it comes out on dvd so I can get more of the gorgeous Keanu!

TackaberryNov 20, 2003 at 10:24AM

I thought the movie was great. I participated a lot in the old reloaded thread and think I was pretty much on. It was about agency. Sati is a computer program with no purpose, built of love. The very first description of her is as a child of curiousity or something like that. she has no purpose, and no therefore no discriminations to control her choices and make them deterministic. The machines finally have what they need to keep the matrix going. A program with true agency. And Neo is so dead.

I think the trilogy will be remembered as a great piece of literature (not movie, literature) if for nothing else than weaving all of our religions and philosophies into a single seamless narrative.
The whole blind thing plays into greek myth, where seers had to lose their eyes to have true sight. It is a meaphoric device, not a technical device. I loved Merv asking for the eyes, and I loved the Oracle giving them to Neo and smith. Merv is the last enemy left sort of speak. Not a enough for a movie (there wont b anymore movies) but just enough for an online video game:)
What questions do people have left?

OrshNov 20, 2003 at 11:28AM

Melpomene, I agree with most of what you’re saying. I agree with your views on Sati, Neo’s choice (the doors :), also that humans and machines will in some way or another (trry to) cooperate.

jordanNov 20, 2003 at 12:42PM

In the end, neither “side” won.

This is a Buddhist ending.
The struggle to escape the system purpetuates the system.
THis is the problem with all massiah figures.
Remember the line in the Animatrix about compassion for all forms of intelligence?

The Solution offered to us is that, while we cannot escape, this may not be a problem. We can live our lives with compassion and kindness and creativity within this world.

In the end, humans are still plugged in, those on the outside are safe (for now)
The matrix (a term that means “mater” “womb” and “mother”) is finally balanced between the linear control of the architect and the creative chaos of the Oracle. Neo has surpassed the desire to transcend the Matrix and has allowed Sati to emerge. She is the potential for Mindful action (in Buddhism Sati is mindfulness. Love (arjuna) is the practice of acting from awareness) Which means that the Matix, while always a realm of suffering (dukkha) is also a realm of interconnection.

This is the teaching of Buddha, who rejects the wheel of death and rebirth (samsara) and instead starts the Revolution of the Wheel of Dharma (the cycle of developing compassion, mindfulness, etc.)

The third film ends not with “Freedom from the Matrix”
but with “Freedom within the Matrix”

DarrenNov 20, 2003 at 2:18PM

The matrix related to everyone in different ways. Never before have I been to a theater and seen such an elegant mix of my beliefs (Philosophical, religious, and Scientific)

depicted on the big screen.

I firmly believe that the string theory was the underlining driver of all three of these excellent movies. The string theory explains how vibrating strings of energy exists in several dimensions all at one time. Every person and everything is made up of these tiny strings. Currently, this is something that cannot be proven, or observed due to the extremely small size of these strings.

Neo can see the energy (strings) in the real world, just as he (and others) can in the matrix. Those that can see the code in the matrix are capable of writing programs, and control part of the matrix. The matrix is made up of a far more basic code than the real world.

The matrix is a created dimension where only plugged in human energy (strings) exists just as it does in “the real world”. Only gifted people (“the One” & his opposite) can experience both dimensions without having jacked in.

According to the string theory, everything, from humans to rocks to machines exist on the very same energy. The theory doesn’t explain where the energy originated and where it is headed. (Only studying our heritage can help paint that picture…but that is another discussion) We (our conscious being) are driven to move our energy through the timeless universe, while accumulating and donating energy along the way. The path we take is determined by the following influences: “love” “choice”, “hope”, “faith” and “belief”.

In these films, the interaction between man and machine (the war) was “chosen”, yet “meant to be”. By performing a miracle (which was also “meant to be”), Neo “chooses” to instill faith, and hope in all the conscious beings (man and machine) in the universe who believe in this miracle.

The Matrix only explores these observable dimensions to humans. I praise the makers of the films for their amazing foresight.

zerodougNov 20, 2003 at 3:19PM

After reading all the new comments since I posted my initial thoughts I must say I really appreciate the information presented here on the multi-cultural influences in the films. Particular thanks to Arun for the Hindu information links.

Ingrid: I didn’t see your comments until yesterday. I was thinking in more general terms about the progression of thought displayed by the three characters and how it matches the changes in physical theory. Einstein was the only particular scientist I had in mind, but he is just one example of the school of thought at the time. I am not as familiar with Wheeler, (I intend to look him up this afternoon), but I did have in mind Bohm, Bell, Godel, Penrose and the book “Shadows of the Mind” in particluar.

I think the movies do an amazing job of mixing so many threads from different disciplines, despite some plot holes and under-developed characters. I had a chance to see some of the clips included in the “Enter the Matrix” game. They have a few details that help explain the change in the Oracle and highlight the philosophical nature of the film.

I have a question I would like to ask this group. Do you think the Merovingian and the Trainman stay in the Matrix during the takeover by Smith and the reload? The Trainman mentions that Zion stood for 72 hours in the last revolution. These characters have a means of escaping the final resolution and I think they use it. I don’t think Smith assimilates them. They take the last train out of town when the resolution approaches.

I noticed the difference in the color cast of the matrix world versus the Zion scenes. I find it interesting that the Matrix after the reload has a more natural color hue that matches reality. Maybe a little too saturated for that matter. Is this the matrix with “love” included in the design? I think so. Humans may have an easier time accepting the more natural new matrix than the older, colder version. That may be one of the new conditions that will allow machines and humans to co-exist.

I took the comments that “those who wish to leave” will have the opportunity to be an indication that the reigns of control over people will be loosened to allow self-determination. I still think this is a major theme, (self-determination), in the movies - particulary M1. The Wired article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/matrix.html?pg=1 sure presents a picture of an individual who is driven by a specific need for self-determination. I realize this article is mostly conjecture, but there may be some fact behind the speculation that would explain one the main themes.

The launch of the Matrix online should be a very interesting place to see how a wider range of people respond to the concepts of the films. Right now I only know of one up and running matrix that is nearly as vibrant as the one presented in this film. The stock market is a global network of interfaced humanity striving for survival and domination. For those of you not intimately familiar with online trading, those stock charts and electronic data feeds are like the cascading code the operators view. You can eventually get to the point where you don’t see charts, you see an incredible display of the greed and fear of millions of people, along with the labors of thousands of organizations. It’s amazing how technology has provided a platform for man’s most basic drives to play out globally. I don’t know if it was an inspiration for these films at any level but the shoe sure fits.

phizicsNov 20, 2003 at 3:51PM

Darren-

I’m a string theory fan too, but I have to say that I don’t see that it fits for the Matrix films.

It’s an occam’s razor thing: the simplest explanation that includes all the available data is probably the best.

Since there was no mention of strings, no discussion of strings or membranes as an underlying metaphor that coresponds to string or M-theory, I personally can’t see it.

DavNov 20, 2003 at 4:23PM

Great comment board here. Just a quick question - one that I’m amazed no one has brought up - and a comment.

Q) Sati. I am 99.9% sure her father, Rama, made a deal with ‘The Frenchman’ to keep her alive. This is supported by comments that he was seen dining w/ Merv in Reloaded. Why then does Sati go to live with the Oracle? Didn’t Merv ask Trin at the dance club to go get the Oracle’s eyes for him? Doesn’t it seem like there’s some antipathy b/w Merv and the Oracle? Why then would Sati, in a deal brokered by the Merv, go to live with the Oracle? This just doesn’t really make much sense…please, someone post a theory.

C) To preface, I’m a believer that the Matrix was used not as a power source, but as a petri dish with which the machines could study humans to refine their AI. This theory goes along well with the fact that Neo had a choice b/w two doors in Reloaded. If the goal was really just to reboot the Matrix, why would they have given Neo a choice at all? They could have lured him to the Architect and then said - ‘get in there.’ But instead they gave him a choice, and I believe this was part of their observations - they wanted to see how he responded. They then extract this information from Neo once he’s recompiled back into the core and the system is rebooted to reveal nice blue skies (version 6.0)

Thoughts on the question? This is a great board, keep it up

KaijimaNov 20, 2003 at 6:25PM

Dav: Yes, I picked up on the idea that the Matrix was used largely as a way to study humans, though I’m not sure of the exact reason why. I do believe the Brothers have a few layers of motivation in the story for some of the primary movers (the Machines as a whole, the Oracle, the Architect, even Neo himself) that they do not directly refer to and leave it to the viewer to extrapolate.

I do think that the choice given Neo (and presumably the prior incarnations of the One) with the two doors is the simple and pursuasive evidence that the Machines -want- to understand something that they do not, in addition to simply controling humanity. Remember, the Architect said the Oracle was originally created to better understand humanity - also, it seems it would be natural for the Architect himself to desire to understand more in the hopes of finally perfecting his “equations”.

Of course, the rules of the game have changed now. And it has already been shown with Sati that the AIs themselves are capable of evolving toward more human capabilities - something to consider is that the evolution that resulted in the motivation of Sati’s parents and her creation, might have been due to programs interacting with humans in the Matrix and slowly developing, learning, and possibly even re-writing themselves at certain points.

I found it interesting though, that when Neo in Revolutions faced down the core (or perhaps original?) AI in 01, that the *initial* reaction of the AI was to snarl “WE NEED NOTHING!” Between things shown in the Animatrix, Smith’s attitudes toward humanity (especially the thoughts revealed by his ranting to Morpheus in M1), and the reaction of the core AI, I suspect that the AIs themselves are to some extent capable of experiencing denial - ironic since the Architect noted it was the most predictable of human emotions. But it has been shown repeatedly that the Machines are capable of human qualities, such as the connections the words “love” and “karma” identify.

If I were to really speculate out there about the future of the Matrix universe, I might venture that just because there is now a peace, it doesn’t mean some attitudes on both sides will change - while the Oracle is obviously a progressive program, I somehow see others like the Architect as holding to their conventional opinions even if they deal with the new circumstances. The same could hold true on the human side as well. I do think there is plenty of potential for future conflict; I don’t just see Merv as a remaining enemy. The Architect himself could assume that role in a somewhat detached manner.

(In point of fact, I am not so sure that the Merv would be a clear-cut enemy in the new Matrix and human/machine peace. I tend to think he just wants the best of what is going for himself, and if it means now working with humans, so be it. As long as he gets a satisfying slice of the rewards out of it.)

SueNov 20, 2003 at 6:33PM

Darren, I see it. I thought your comments were outstanding and thought provoking.

TackaberryNov 20, 2003 at 10:20PM

The architect will not be an enemy. Now that there is Sati, there is no reason for him to be a bastard. Merv will be the enemy. He has a lot to lose if humans and programs are at peace, and if humans over the course of a generation are too live out their lives or become unplugged.

Sati’ws parents sold the Oracles deletion codes to Merv. They got the codes by asking the Oracle for them. The oracles eyes are foresight. In ancient greece seers often had to give up their eyes willingly to gain a true sight. You cant take the Oracles eyes, her foresight, she must give them willingly. The Oracle new Merv would try to take her ssight, and that she would pay a cost. The Oracle also knew what Sati represented, finally a computer program with no purpose and no discriminations in her choice. Her only discrimination in making choices being curiousity and beauty. The Oracle knows that Sati is more important than the cost she has to pay, gives the codes to the parents, knowing full well what will happen.

The decision is about agency. Computer can’t restart their own program, cant make the first decision. In Philosophy its called the frame problem. Google it. Now Sati can do this.

And the purpose of life was to die.

Shaun InmanNov 21, 2003 at 12:26AM

Whoa. Took me three days to read all these comments. And I still don’t know kung-fu. ;D Revolutions has proven to be much like everything else in life - you get what you put into it. I left the theatre feeling disappointed - not because of loose ends and unresolved conflicts but because of what I felt was poor pacing (which some have pointed out may have been deliberate) and excesses of budget. This thread and it’s investigations have done much to balance those flaws.

Like everyone else I have a few observations, questions and theories of my own. First off, did any else notice the “white rabbit” in the Hades scene? I’ve only seen the movie once but I believe she was probably in the bottom right of the frame after the trio had ascended the staircase to meet Merv but before Trin gets here hands on a weapon. How about that Tasty Wheat billboard as the trio is getting of the subway while chasing the Trainman? Nice.

More observations. People complained of Morpheus being “whipped, fat and pathetic” in Revolutions. Consider that at the end of Reloaded, Neo, his savior, tells him that the Prophecy is just another form of control, his ship is destroyed (“I dreamed a dream and now that dream is gone”) and the war did not end as he predicted it would only hours before sitting in his comfy red leather chair. He’s a broken man in a daze without purpose. He looks like man living through his midlife crisis. Since the two sequels were filmed at the same time I can’t help but think that any perceived weight-gain was intentional and more a device to communicate his broken spirit than anything else.

Damn, text areas make me anxious. I’ve forgotten my other points/questions…maybe more later.

DavNov 21, 2003 at 10:22AM

Thanks Tackaberry, that makes sense in regards to why Sati could be involved in a deal with both Merv & the Oracle.

I also think it’s interesting, in the context of the comments on these boards, that one of the first scenes we see w/ both the Oracle & Sati is them making cookies. One poster said earlier that the cookie given to Neo in M1 could have contained the Smith virus code (passed along at the end when Neo dives in). This is plausible given that we see Merv write code as a piece of cake delivered in M2 (go nuts on the metaphor of food as code-delivering devices). Could the Oracle be instructing Sati on how to write this code with cookies? Interesting that she said that ‘cookies need love’ - just some thoughts.

K.Nov 22, 2003 at 7:58PM

Just a few things while I think of them.

I have to say that my bringing up string theory was only to relate to the subcode…I’m not saying that the film is based on string theory at all…and I must say that I don’t fully understand the ins and outs of the theory but the points made about string relating to the humans in the matrix as strings would be wrong…and the code would be too big and simple to be string.

I’d also like to argue that I believe the Oracle CAN predict the future, she says that she is able to see the world without time, as Neo now does in Reloaded when he sees Trinity falling. However, her predictions stop when there is a choice to be made, because you need to allow the river to choose its course and then you can follow the path again until it meets another choice. Even Neo wouldn’t be able to see past a choice.

I don’t think the Architect would be an enemy of the humans…his character is different to Merv…he is the father of the Matrix and his task is to oversee its operation - his purpose is not to meddle in the politics…but just to ensure the system works.

TackaberryNov 23, 2003 at 11:04AM

Is anyone familiar with any specific references to Islam in the movies? I know the beliefs are close to Christianity, but wondered about specific refenreces. It seems odd it would be the only major religion not represented.

KaijimaNov 23, 2003 at 5:47PM

The reason I ponder the Architect being an adversary of some kind is that it hasn’t really been specified who among the Machine society proposed the “solution” of the Matrix in the first place. While it’s true that the Architect might have been created after the Matrix was concieved in order to oversee the development, I think it’s also possible that he could have been the program who devised the system - his title as Architect does not prove by itself it is only the Architect of the Matrix. He could have been the Machines’ central head of system development, etc, etc. If he DID devise the basic idea for the Matrix, he could consider it the best solution to the human “problem”. If during the peace, the Matrix is systematically phased out, the Architect might consider it a potential high threat to the Machines, peace or no peace. (The prospect of losing the Matrix along with humanity itself was a different scenario; while the Machines would have been weakened, their enemy would also have been destroyed.)

Under these circumstances, I see him as an “adversary” to some of the goals of the Oracle and I suspect, to a lot of the Zionist ideals, because he might consider keeping a healthy percentage of the human population inside the Matrix to be the most “logical” course of action and attempt to manipulate things to ensure this. Yes, his purpose isn’t to meddle in politics, but the Matrix is his entire concern. Let us also not forget that under typical Machine rules, if the Matrix is phased out the Architect no longer has a purpose and would be deleted. While this could change eventually thanks to factors such as Sati, I’m somehow not convinced that the sheer ego that the Architect has would allow him to simply wander off to be deleted; I suspect he might consider himself far to “valuable” because of his abilities and perfection.

(Which applies of course, in the case of the Architect NOT having any more functions or duties outside of the Matrix at the present time.)

MelpomeneNov 23, 2003 at 7:29PM

I learn so much from reading everyone’s comments here, as we all read the movies through the lens of our own background/beliefs/knowledge, and my views have certainly been enriched by the contributors to this thread.

Shaun Inman, did not pick up on the white rabbit actress nor the tasty wheat ad - classic! Will have to watch the movie a few more times!

Tackaberry, great question about Islam, the only obvious thing I saw was the Kid removing his shoes before entering the temple, and you could see all the shoes lined up on the ground, just like outside a mosque. However, there are Hindu temples where shoes must also be removed, so I don’t know if this was specifically a reference to Islam or not.

My knowledge of Islam is not that great, but I think that the major religious themes of the movie, such as realising the true nature of existence, love for others, etc are shared by all the great religions. Islam has a concept of a devil and a hell (Merv), and of self-restraint and duty (Neo’s path towards becoming the One). The underlying philosophy of Islam is ‘surrender to the will of God’, and while this doesn’t seem to fit in with the theme of Choice that runs so strongly through the movie, it helps us to see that surrender can also mean surrendering egocentricity, surrendering false beliefs and desires, and choosing to accept whatever life brings. I keep thinking back to the first Matrix movie, when Neo first meets the Oracle, and she gives him a cookie and says,”You’ll remember you don’t believe in this fate crap”. But the truth is, Neo was the One, he just had to let go of all his illusions to realise it.

Zerodoug said: I have a question I would like to ask this group. Do you think the Merovingian and the Trainman stay in the Matrix during the takeover by Smith and the reload?

I agree with you, Zerodoug, I think they do survive. I guess at the end of any great fable there is always a lesser enemy left behind. The great enemy is destroyed by the Hero, but the ordinary people don’t get some utopia to live after it’s all over, they still have to guard their freedom. Merv pretty much ran the underworld of the Matrix, and survived 5 of Neo’s predecessors. No doubt he’ll still have a role as a ‘program smuggler’ for refugee prorams from the machine world in the new Matrix. Speaking of which …

Zerodoug said: I noticed the difference in the color cast of the matrix world versus the Zion scenes. Is this the matrix with “love” included in the design? I think so. Humans may have an easier time accepting the more natural new matrix than the older, colder version. That may be one of the new conditions that will allow machines and humans to co-exist.

Orsh said: - Love was now kinda integrated to the A.I with Neo going in to the Source.

I think this is a great idea. Presumably the dissemination of the code of each One before the Matrix reloads is part of an evolutionary process, and the fact that Neo’s ‘code’ contains such intense love pushes the Martix into a whole new level of sophistication and psychological realism.

TackaberryNov 23, 2003 at 10:53PM

It does fit the best, that the purpose of the One was to bring to the programs experience and knowledge of love to be integrated into the source, BUT my problem then lies with Sati. First, she would seem to have no purpose if all the programs have received the love program through the reloading, Second, she was created before this reloading. Where really is she from? How could her program parents make her of love, something never done, and the entire point of the NEO story? Doesnt Sati’s creation before the dissimination of NEOs love code make the whole NEO story irrelevant?

TackaberryNov 23, 2003 at 10:55PM

Sorry for the double post, but this is really bothering me. It seems to ruin the movie and all the hard work the Ws did.

anandNov 24, 2003 at 2:01AM

Brahma created Sati to tame Shiva and teach him the lessions of love. Shiva till then had rejected samsara ( the family way of life ) and was prone to wandering around the jungles and mountains. This caused concern among the gods that others might follow and society itself might collapse if people reject the family way of life. So Sati was created and through Sati, Shiva felt the first pangs of love.

To draw a matrix parallel, oracle ( Brahma ) created Sati so that programs feel love for the first time.

Sati is an avatar of Shakthi, who was born out of the bodies of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. To call Rama her father is ideal in that sense.

Just some thoughts, I jotted down on my site.

MelpomeneNov 24, 2003 at 4:41AM

Tackaberry, the way I would answer your question is to say that the Neo and Sati storylines are separate. Programs are evolving all the time (as the Oracle explains to Neo in Reloaded), and Rama and Kamala are two forms of AI which have reached the stage where they can feel emotion. They pour out this emotion into a selfless act of creation - Sati. She specifically does NOT have a purpose. She is created beyond purpose, she represents the next evolutionary phase of AI - existence for its own sake.

The purpose of the One in my opinion was not necessarily to teach AI about love, but about human choice. Sati doesn’t pre-empt Neo’s experience of love because she is the product of love, not its disseminator.

I don’t know how AI (specifically Rama and Kamala) is able to feel emotion, but it has had plenty of time to investigate the human psyche. Perhaps, as I think has already been suggested, the interaction between humans and programs in the Matrix has allowed AI to experience emotion.

I don’t know if this has really answered your question, Tackaberry. I think that Neo’s quest to understand the nexus of choice and determinism is the central theme of the movies, while Sati is someone who belongs to the future Matrix that we are left to imagine at the end of Revs.

OrshNov 24, 2003 at 5:17AM

Tackaberry, Neo’s story was not irrelevant: remember, before that (in the beginning of Revolutions) we find out that Sati was considered an unnecessary program to be deleted!

shilmarNov 24, 2003 at 6:47AM

another matrix movie
there are tow problems in the film that i think

the first half of the movie is really intense and have a lot of action (the battle) but in the finish… there no action

and the other ptoblem is that there’s no solution to the problem that can satisfice all (free humans, conected humans and machines)

and sorry for my english please

HarryNov 24, 2003 at 7:50AM

Ah, the movie is about love. This iteration of the One has Neo loving Trinity, and that makes him the victor, capable of winning in the end, well, at least of securing peace with the machines. Sati is a program originally meant to be deleted as she has no purpose in the world of programs, the machine world. She is the manifestation/personification of (the concept of) love, something the machines do not need. Yet, she is unique, and the Oracle has her learning to make cookies, cookies that need her unique brand of love, cookies that will disseminate her love programming, maybe in the form of a digestible virus. The cookies (and the Merovingian’s chocolate cake) are there on purpose! But I am left wondering if Smith knew about Sati’s real identity/purpose, because he didn’t seem affected when he took over her. Perhaps Sati, seen as a child, is a developing, young, inexperienced program? Would an older Sati be powerful like the Oracle is? Will Sati now join the Oracle in keeping some sort of order in this new version of the matrix?

TackaberryNov 24, 2003 at 10:01AM

thanks for your posts, especially Meloponene. But I still see a problem with the programs discovering agency without NEO’s experience vis a vis love (but not love, they talk about irrelevant the word is, and how importnat that kind of cennection is, with Sati, they suggest Beauty, but I digress). If NEO didnt teach them agency, then who did? They were evolving in the background etc, sure, but I still think this last leap needed Neo. Neo’s role is reduced to bringing peace and stopping Smith. All fine and good, but it seems to me a lot of the dialogue in especially Reloaded now has no context.

I dunno I ll think about it some more.

ChrisNov 24, 2003 at 11:40AM

I think this film series has borowed from so many myths, histories legends and religions that it is next to impossible to pin anything down.
A couple of things that others have not yet said.
Niobe was the Queen of Thebes and with her husband claimed to have created the city. (Her and Morpheus had something going on from earlier times?) (Myth)
Sati is a religious form of suicide in which the widow will join her husband on a funeral pyor. This is said to be the ultimate act of love. Sati is the embodiment of that sentiment. (Religion)
Frenchman says, during the meeting, Angel without wings (in French). Isn’t this a reference to Lucifer who was cast from heaven and had his wings clipped, as it were? Also, as others have mentioned, the lift button says Hell. (Religion)
The Trainman. Ferryman across the Styx? Carrying souls between the earth and the below… (Myth)
Smith also meets the Oracle. She calls him a b*st*rd and he replies “Well, you should know, Mom.” He then refers to her as Ma’am emphasisng the difference. Did the Oracle create Smith?
Cookies… Do we not acquire cookies when we visit websites. Are they not used as a way of tracking and storing information on the user?
Anyone notice that Neo effectively became one with the architect (one with God) and had sacrificed himself to save everyone else… Ring any bells? Also, when he became light, for a period, anyone notice that it started in his chest, radited out into the form of a cross before engulfing him completely…?
And that Neo is a prefix meaning New (or most recent… latest, etc)
I think that the end is a little like 5th Element (Bruce Willis/Luc Besson) (the 5th Element being love). Sati holds the whole system in balance, being the embdiment of love.
(Lastly… Mifune… The Commander in the wicked shooting thing… Toshiro Mifune was a Japanese actor who appears to have done a fair amount of (fictional) sword play and martial arts… Is this a nod in homage to his influences…)
Anymore influences anyone????

WinTimeNov 24, 2003 at 12:57PM

“Art is the lie, through which we see the truth. - Pablo Picasso”

The Matrix Trilogy is a work of art, and like all art, the purpose is not to deliver answers but to induce question in the eye of the beholder.

Salvation, Love and Belief are the Three Major Universals within the Matrix Trilogy. Neo delivers Salvation, Trinity love and Morpheus belief. All three films remain constant and the characters never waiver from beginning to end in their universal representation. From this mettapattern, we are able to filter out the special effects and other notions and events as mere noise to be analyze through a different spectrum. The results of these energy patterns either positive or negative, I leave to each individual to elaborate and discuss at a latter time.

Today, in the modern school of world thought, the concepts of Salvation, Love, and Belief and the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour are both unfashionable and political incorrect. However, after 2000 years, the universal question remains, does the love of Jesus Christ deliver salvation to those who believe? The Architect’s question to the Oracle “Did you know” was answered “No, but I believed”

I believe, and like Morpheus my beliefs do not require you to believe.

As a long time believer in Jesus Christ, my personal experience is that the universal concepts of Salvation, Love and Belief are wonderfully expressed and articulate in the narrative and history of Jesus Christ. It is also my experienced that these same concepts have been the cause of many wars throughout history, family feuds and an uneasiness of those who are presented with questions that naturally arise from the concepts of Salvation, Love and Belief in everyday conversation.

And maybe in the end that is why the critics (the enemy) did not like the third film; they did not want to face the reality of the final question. Does salvation come through the love and belief of Jesus Christ the Savoir? Like the Oracle, I do not know, I can only believe. What I do know is that the question makes the unbelieving uncomfortable, tormented and sometimes even violent. This is the nature of the question.

As for the films final metapattern of yin and yang and a new beginning expressed by the innocence’s of the inner child, it was a 2001 ending.

PS

With the introduction of the word Trinity, the Wachowski Brothers have challenged us to consider God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. There is no escaping this fact, the question is why?

OmetiklanNov 24, 2003 at 2:52PM

One poster included most or all of Neo’s phone conversation at the end of “The Matrix” but I read this entire thread and didnt see anyone questioning that speech in relation to Neo’s understanding of his purpose in the three movies, or the time frame of the speech.

On another site I read that the “trace program” that runs at the begining of “The Matrix” takes place in early 1998, but that the “trace program” that runs at the end of “The Matrix” (which fails) runs near the end of 1999. Now, there is no definative explanation of how much time has passed between the first movie and the subsequent two, but at one point Morpheus says “we have freed more minds in the last six months…” with implys that approximately 6 months might have passed. This means that Neo could have made the phone call not at the end of “The Matrix” but some time after all three movies take place. This could answer both the questions of why didnt we see what we were promised at the end of “The Matrix” and the question of is Neo dead at the end of “Revolutions”?

This other site also tried to tie together the fact that Neo in the phone conversation seems to have a very clear picture of what his purpose is, but at the begining of “Reloaded” he says that he doesnt know what he is supposed to do. To me this particular idea is not as strong as the time frame argument, but interesting.

I wonder what everyone elses’ takes on this is.

Ometiklan

John BedardNov 24, 2003 at 7:40PM

Ometiklan said: “This other site also tried to tie together the fact that Neo in the phone conversation seems to have a very clear picture of what his purpose is, but at the begining of “Reloaded” he says that he doesnt know what he is supposed to do. To me this particular idea is not as strong as the time frame argument, but interesting.”

At the end of M1 Neo has awakened to the basic truth of his situation, though obviously can’t see the big picture. In a general way he knows what he has to do, i.e. free/awaken others from the Matrix and stop the war. But in Reloaded, he doesn’t know specifically how to go about it.

My impression, anyway.

John

MelpomeneNov 25, 2003 at 12:21AM

WinTime, as has been discussed extensively on this thread, the Matrix movies draw on many different philosophical and religious traditions. I would deny that the general concepts of Love, Belief (in peace, human dignity) and Salvation (from oppression, sorrow, suffering) are unfashionable and politically incorrect. But even if they were, I’d say that the Matrix movies have done a pretty good job of highlighting these things to a wide audience, and have done it in such a way that each individual creates their own interpretation.

You argue that the three main characters do not waver in their roles throughout the trilogy, yet look at Morpheus in Revs - a man whose beliefs have been shattered, a man searching for a way to make his life meaningful. He ends up finding strength not through his devotion to the Prophecy, but in his friendship with Neo and his struggle against the sentinel army.

In my view, the ultimate question of Revs was not about salvation through Jesus, rather it was about how we choose to live our lives. Therefore I can’t see that some critics didn’t like Revs because they felt uncomfortable with the question of Christian salvation. If you’ve sensed that people have been uncomfortable when YOU have raised this topic, maybe it’s because they don’t share your beliefs (and as you said, you don’t require them to, so naturally you’d respect their right not to discuss the topic).

Your beliefs are your own, but what I like about the Matrix movies is that PLURAL interpretations are possible, and are far more stimulating than just one viewpoint.

michaelNov 25, 2003 at 2:14AM

WinTime said:
“PS

With the introduction of the word Trinity, the Wachowski Brothers have challenged us to consider God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. There is no escaping this fact, the question is why?”

We heard you the first time.

This fact is very escapable. The Trinity as you’ve used it here is Catholic dogma, and not universally Christian. And perhaps it is unknown to you, but many other religions have “Trinitys”.

There is a Hindu trinity, a Buddhist trinity, a Taoist trinity, etc. Not to equate them with the Catholic Trinity, but religious trinities and triads abound. Do I think the Catholic Trinity is discounted in the Matrix? No. However I also don’t think it’s the ONLY reference being made.

jordan said:
“In the first movie, Neo opens a book. If you look at it carefully it is Baudrillard’s “simulacrum and simulation.” An amazing book that the Matrix is a metaphor for.

I wont go completely into detail right now (I’m working on an essay about this that I’ll post soon.)”

Funny how this was predicted by Joe Haldeman in his essay “The Matrix as Sc-Fi” from Exploring the Matrix.

“One throwaway reference that will probably be fueling easy masters’ theses for a decade or so is the fact that Neo has his stash of illicit programs hidden in a hollowed-out book that is a basic post-modern text, Simulacra and Simulation, by Jean Baudrillard. Like thmovie itself, postmodernism is a stimulating grab-bag of notions, not necessarily related to one another in any outside context. From the momentary flash of the book title, any half-awake graduate student can ride the white rabbit of postmodernism across the junkyard of the film’s references to whatever conclusion seems most acceptable to his or her thesis committee.

That may be the best and final joke in a movie that is, in its deadpan seriousness, a funny sci-fi romp from beginning to end.”

Also like to point out—Baudrillard decodes Matrix

And the use of the term “Mom” by Smith towards the Oracle got me thinking.

Smith was an agent of the system, the machine world, not necessarily OF the Matrix. He makes reference to this in the original movie when he talks about getting out, and going back.

There is also Rama-Kandra’s reference that “Everyone knows the Oracle.”

Perhaps the Oracle is the original AI program that spawned them all. She would be deemed inferior in some way by subsequent programs as they were perfected, and perhaps came to the Matrix as an exile. For me this possibility works to thread a number of things together.

jordanNov 26, 2003 at 3:12PM

I think that the most powerful thing for me, after seeing the Animatrix and Matrix revolutions was the realization that the programs arn’t any less real. That, in the matrix, all programs need compassion and love. That humans are just as much a part of the machine as any program.

That “Matrix” means “mater” and “mother”

The buddha teaches us that the Matrix (some buddhists use the term, I’ve discovered) is something that so many people try to escape, but that the effort to escape it is what allows the ego-orientated aspects that cause suffering to proliferate.

Yes we are trapped in the Matrix, but there is nowhere else.

The reason that I LOVE the last movie is that it helped me understand that the “Solution” to the war is to extinquish the illusion of the matrix but then to come back into it and work with compassion for all of the beings.

The matrix is the goddess, the earth, the mother, she is to be honored and protected.

The poet Gary Snyder writes about the idea of a “Civilization of Wildness” i.e. a civilization with uses its mechanisms to engender compassion and awareness. Thus, perhapse we can have a “Matrix of Compassion”…

trogdorNov 27, 2003 at 12:27AM

Although it has been much ridiculed, I think that the “cookies need love, like everything else” statement is crucial to the reason that the machines allow humans to make a choice.

In another thread it was mentioned that the machines are mostly self-sufficient, however, they lack the ability to choose. They function by mathematical equations, and they cannot look past even a simple choice. Even the Oracle says that “that man (Col. Sanders) cannot see past any choice.” The machines need to have decisions made regarding the system, and that is where Zion comes in.

The first matrix failed because of the fact that there was no choice, so the machines revised it to provide for a choice. The matrix cannot function without the cyclic disposal of those “rebellious” humans who realize that it is false. Love is perhaps one of the most incomprehensible choices to the machines. They cannot understand why one would devote his/her entire existence to someone/something else in lieu of one’s own survival. Even though they do not understand this, the machines need it in order to survive. If the “rebellious” humans did not have zeal for and love their causes or one another, then they would never leave the matrix in the first place, and the system would fail just like the first one did.

Perhaps this is the “psychological discovery” by the Oracle that Col. Sanders referred to in M2: that humans are the only beings who posess choice/love power. Not only cookies rely on this love, but so does the entire matrix. When she is about to be comsumed by the Smith virus, she tells Sati that “cookies need love, like everything else,” she is also sending a message that if humans (love) are eliminated from the matrix by the Smith virus, then the matrix will cease to function.

trogdorNov 27, 2003 at 12:38AM

Oh, and another thing: Many people think that the matrix is based on a story in PLato’s The Republic called “The Allegory of the Cave” In which a person is freed from the “shadows” that they see on the walls of the cave, and then eventually find their was to the entrance and “see the light.” This is vaguely familiar. Kinda sounds like when the ship broke above the clouds and Trinity and Neo saw the real sky. No point, just an interesting note

Sam NasthanNov 28, 2003 at 12:29PM

SATHEEEEEEEEE IS A DUDU!!!!!!!!

Andy "The Man" WachowskiNov 28, 2003 at 12:32PM

Hi larry wachowski here. i believe this evening we will all be prophecising. kaka dudu. neo drinks 100% homemade indian dudu from one of the cows from Satis parents farm.

dabearsssssNov 28, 2003 at 9:02PM

Hey, just a thought-
In another thread it was suggested that There are 99.9% of people who were satisfied with the Matrix, but the .1% who weren’t were released to Zion to keep the Matrix running. However, via the “Matrix within a Matrix” theory, 99.9% of THOSE people were satisfied with the “Zion” reality, and .1% would deny it also. Could this second “.1%’ just be the One. I know the math doesn’t work out, but this could explain how Neo just transcended into the Train world without being plugged in. Kinda stupid, but so is a 99.9% of the shit on the internet anyway.

michaelNov 29, 2003 at 12:45AM

No one ever said it was 99.9 percent. The Architect said nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice.

michealNov 29, 2003 at 6:07AM

No one ever said it was 99.9 percent. The Architect said nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice.

TackaberryNov 29, 2003 at 6:12AM

I hate the matrix

PinaColadaButtLotionNov 29, 2003 at 5:31PM

About the Door thing-

In the movie all of the Neo’s on the screens are going towards door two, making it seem that Door 2 was the only possible choice.

Just wanted to say that here, noticed it on the DVD

TackaberryNov 30, 2003 at 1:16PM

My post should say I hate the matrix within a matrix theory

elmoNov 30, 2003 at 9:13PM

does anyone else think it’s creepy that noone in the Matrix has parents? they’re all the machine’s test-tube babies. eew.