Slashdot Mirror
The Matrix: Resolutions
Slappy White writes "For six months, Matrix message boards were aflame with speculation, theories, predictions and outright psychotic guessing about Revolutions. Now the film is here, and this article has a humorous roundup of some of the popular theories, both those that were close and others that were, shall we say, a little off the mark." I still haven't seen this film, so I'll refrain from passing judgment, but I'm ever so happy the matrix-within-a-matrix theories were unfounded. Update: 11/09 02:38 GMT by CN : Some folks who've never seen the Twilight Zone or even the Simpsons' Treehouse of Horrors thought that was a spoiler. If you're one of those people, I'm very sorry.
well as i said there's no more text in this posting. just thank you for the spoiler, CN!
To me, Revolutions has come the closest to accomplishing what the first Matrix did. The plot was so much better, flowed nicely, and the dialog was easy to understand yet had those hidden philosophy messages which is what made the first movie so successful.
The special effects were amazing as well.
What got me was the amazing ending. It was unexpected in someways, but totally made sense when you consider everything that happened in the movie.
Also there still is enough unanswered questions that another trilogy could be created if they ever wanted to. They will probably wait 10-20 years before doing another trilogy if they ever wanted to.
I disagree. The matrix within a matrix theory was well founded, but it proved wrong. These are not the same thing. If I told you I have a ripe strawberry in my hand, you would have the well founded belief that it is red, because ripe strawberries are red. But if it were blue, it doesn't mean that your belief was unfounded, at least until you saw the strwbrry.
Logic, macros, and more
Where's the theory that it's all real, the machines wised onto the fact that people were catching on, and modified the Matrix to make the last movie crap and therefore spoil the franchise, ending the crusade for enlightenment?
Well, that's my theory anyway, nothing else makes a lot of sense. Back to sleep, folks.
This is what the above website has to say on the subject:
Great. That says nothing. Absolutely nothing. As I say in my review, the Oracle's comment is an observation, not an explanation. It's like saying that the reason a car will not work is because it will not go. He has a connection with "the source" - and?Lest anyone think that this is a message backing the Twin Matrix theory, it isn't that either. I thought it was fairly obvious what Revolutions was trying to do: it was leaving all of these questions open. There's room in Revolutions for most of the explanations people came up with. Unfortunately so many people wanted a nice tidy ending with Neo and Trinity living happily ever after and everything "explained" that they've kind of missed it all.
I think it's a good sequel. But then I wanted something other than the usual Hollywood mindless happy endings. YMMV.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Neo: Never. I'll never be assimilated. You've failed, Agent Smith. I am the One, like all the ones before me.
Agent Smith: So be it... One.
[rays come out of his hand, electrocuting Neo. One of the Agents turns into the Oracle, she comes, and throws Agent Smith into space, and dies. Oracle dies in Neo's hands...]
[Fade away]
[Drum music in Zion, Zionites having a rave party using Sentinel parts as percusion instruments.]
[Neo burns the body of Trinity, and she appears in yellow vapor form, as well as the Oracle, the Architect and even Tank]
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
I can't figure out what people are complaining about. It was a great movie, particularly if you consider all three movies to be one story. Granted, you have to like that sort of movie and you have to actually have an attention span, but if you do you should enjoy it. Basically if you like anime movies like Akira or the Gundam Wing series or Marvel's X-men comics (lots of action and some heavy pontificating) it should be right up your alley. I really enjoyed it.
Maybe folks are complaining about the ending. (no I'm not going to give it away) It was surprising and very non-traditional but really good too. I thought it was a great close to the story arc. Leaves future sequels as a possibility too.
I was disappointed at first with Revolutions.
However, last night I watched Reloaded again.
You have to pay great attention during Reloaded to find your answers to the Matrix. They dont make sense if you've only seen movies 1 and 2, but they do if you've seen all 3. In particular, listen to what the architect says.
While some may say reloaded is about reloading the Matrix....note that the Matrix never did get reloaded....but something the architect says makes me think different. And it explains Neo's sudden ability to interact with the machine world outside of the Matrix.
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
-the "Trainman" was the gyrocopter guy from Mad Max
-the face from Tron
-the "face ship" modelled after the ships from Buckaroo Banzai
-Robotech/Macross mecha
-in the club... "CYPHERMEN" from THE INVISIBLES
-Monica Bellucci is a fox.
-in the Matrix... the programmers are all from India
-the "Merovingians" were a line of kings in Southern France before the Middle Ages who believed themselves to be direct descendants of Jesus Christ. the Catholic Church wiped them out along with the Cathars, Gnostics and the Templars.
-everyone needs to read THE INVISIBLES
-there was more but I forgot it on the way home.
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
heh, your so right, everyone that didnt like the movie was expecting some type of hollywood ending like all the machines dieing and Neo becoming a god or something, this is why I LOVED the movie so much, it did totally the oppisite. Most people like walking out of the theater feeling good inside, all warm and fuzzy, like something special just happened. (like in the first matrix)
Also I think another reason people didnt like the movie is because they dont use their imagination. They dont think about what happened, they dont understand the movie. They are expecting everything to be candy coated and spoon feed to them.
Thank you Wacowski Brothers for not doing that!
keanmarine.com
Anybody else see it as just straight biblical allegory? I'm not even a Christian, and it seemed rather blatent (even heavy-handed) to me.
Neo - Christ
Smith - Anti-christ
Machine ruler - God
So when Neo becomes able to do all that stuff in the real world, its like the miracles of Jesus. He can do it because he has "a connection to the source" --- in other words a connection to the divine. When he's fighting Agent Smith, Smith loses when he finally calls Neo "Neo" (instead of "Mr. Anderson" has he had been doing up to this point). That means he acknowledges Neo's status (accepts him as their savior) and is thus destroyed. Of course, Neo dies (sacrifices himself for his race) in a very cruxification-like scene (complete with cross-shaped light right before the end). All that stuff at the end about Neo potentially coming back is an allusion to the messiah.
Or it could be something else entirely. To tell the truth, I don't care. The last two movies are pretty crappy (though I loved the first). The dialogue was truely bad --- those writers need to be shot, and the plot seemed very strained --- a lot of going from A to B because C said to.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
which alot of the fighting effects came from.
1. The flying scenes.
2. The twins when they power up.
3. Kung fu and the visible impact waves.
4. People crashing through walls.
The only things missing from the film ?
1. Vegita
2. Kama Kama haaa.
3. Spirit Bomb
4. King Kai . Oh wait.....the Oracle...lol.
If DBZ is being made into a movie I recommend the Wachowski brothers.
yes, so long as:
1. you don't expect them to be the best thing ever like many people (stupidly) did.
2. your life doesn't revolve around you having a perfect understanding of The Matrix and it all being perfectly plausible.
3. you can enjoy a film even if it doesn't tell you exactly what you want to hear and show you exactly what you want to see.
Simply put, the Matrix-In-A-Matrix theory is dramatically untenable. It undermines any possible resolution in the films because there can always be another Matrix enclosing the last, another dream to wake up from, as it were.
For the movie to work dramatically, there needs to be some sort of possible conclusion, either to be achieved or frustrated. Setting the first two films in some sort of "higher-order" Matrix undercuts this in two ways: first, it tells the audience "hey, you know those first two movies? well, it turns out that nothing that happened in them counts, there's no real payoff, sorry about that", thus abusing the audience's investment in the fantasy world; second, it not only leaves open, but implicitly nods to the possibility that the second Matrix is in fact fraudulent as well, and that no matter how many times our heros "wake up", they'll still wake up in (another) Matrix. So the possible conclusion necessary for the narrative in the movie to function properly disappears, and all we're left with is bad acting and gee-whiz special effects.
I guess I'm in the minority here in that I find the pseudo-philosophical ruminations* of the Watchowskis tiresome and adolescent, but even I recognize that they know how to spin a good yarn, and they wouldn't ruin the dramatic structure in such an obvious way.
(*"But, like, dude, they talk about Plato on their website, and that "desert of the real" line is like, from some French post-somethingorother dude, and besides, it's so, you know, eastern." Exactly.)
- people start calling each other by nicknames ('merv', 'trin') in an hour's time
'Trin' was not exactly prescedented, but I can overlook it. "Merv" isn't an issue at all; Trinity was making a snide remark.
- the young indian girl and the trainkeeper seem to have no real purpose
The trainman was somewhat gratituous, but Sati has a level of importance that is implied more than explained. The oracle allowed her old shell to be destroyed specifically because she believes that Sati is important to the future of both the humans and the machines. It's just that there really wasn't any way to develop her much in the movie.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Movie #1
What if what you think is reality is not real?
How would you be able to tell?
Movie #2
What if the person you think you are is not who you are?
Why do you choose what you choose?
Is there a choice?
Can I choose to have really long fight and rave scenes instead of looking at those questions?
How many useless characters can I fit in one movie?
Movie #3
How about if everyone talks about love and we blow shit up?
What if I focus on visual effects rather than story? Will anyone who matters notice?
If I'm out of ideas, can I rip off other movies?
Can I end a series while still making sure that I have an opening in case I need to make another movie to bring in more cash?
It's because he's part of the source. It's understandable why you'd miss the two lines of dialog where he asks the question you asked and the oracle gives the answer I just gave you considering how every explaination was just a side note between action and reaction shots.
And since he's part of the source, the "real" world (where the escaped humans hang out) isn't really the real world since he can only control what the source controls. Point for "matrix in a matrix" theorists.
I think what's mildly ironic is that the reason people hated Vanilla Sky is because the last 15 minutes they pretended the audience was full of morons and explained everything.
Matrix: Revolutions didn't do that. They gave short stark answers which answered the questions but in a way that left it open for interpretation.
What did Agent Smith do the the Oracle? You get all of 3 seconds of seeing her lying on the ground where the Agent Smith that took on Neo used to be standing. Sure they could have gone into extensive dialog about why he needed her to defeat Neo OR they could leave it open.
They did that with everything. The answers are all there. They just don't spell it out for you. If they had they'd just be wasting time repeating Matrix 1 and 2.
Personally, my theory is that they knew all the neat questions and how to "show" them as is good story telling but couldn't "show" the answers even if they really knew them. That's the standard problem with philosophy. Most of the great writters have a brilliant ability to ask deep questions in interesting ways but they never give you an answer. They just send you back down the mountain to seek it out yourself.
I'll definitly be picking up the DVD when it comes out. I think people went in with a mindset that is was all action and "sucked" and so, like you, weren't paying attention when answers where offered.
Reloaded was the same way. I went in for the action and picked up much more detail when I got the DVD and watched it more closely.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
But it's also said they have "a form of fusion." That would lead me to believe that they know of nuclear technology. They at least have to fake the existence of nuclear technology for the humans, as isn't it a nuke plant that Niobe & crew infiltrate in Reloaded?
It doesn't even have to be nukes. Very large conventional explosives (think MOAB) would probably do the trick, too. Even if you can't kill all the humans with the blast, at least you can bury them and prevent them from ever leaving the cave.
The answer is, the machines didn't use nukes or gas or anything because the writers are dense. It's the same reason the aliens in Independence Day didn't just pelt the next planet they want to invade (Earth) with neutron bombs (or even nukes) from space a hundred years before they arrive. And, why did they need to use the human's satelites in order to communicate with each other? Answer, because it's a lot more exciting to see space ships fighting F-15, and hordes of squid robots fighting 'Mechs.
Oh, and those 'Mechs were the stupidest thing I've ever seen. You've got all this metal and armor...but none of it is protecting the freaking pilot. Also, if the Mechs are only going to be on flat ground....why use legged machines? Isn't that just another easy point of failure? How about treads instead.
Finally, in the first movie, the EMP was "our only weapon against the machines." So, now, sixth months later, they realize, "oh, machine guns can blow them up, too." Huh? And since the EMP is so incredibly effective, lets make sure they're only on our ships, and let's not keep any around the perimeter of our base.
Plot holes abound.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I really wanted to see them introduce two new characters - The Postgres and The MySQL, who team up to defeat The Oracle. Now that a lot of geeks would've been able to relate to.
sic transit gloria mundi
You nailed it.
I'll go even further and say that things were explained. These movies are the most intellectual action movies that have ever been released, and I doubt we'll have the opportunity for such things to be made ever again.
The Oracle said the power of the One reaches to the Source. This is why he can feel anything connected to the Machines, including Smith in the real world. That seemed obvious.
Smith entering Bane is less obvious, but I figure if they can download training programs or connect to a virtual reality, programs can also hijack a brain through those same ports.
As for how Neo actually destroyed Smith, it is implied, not explained...things aren't spelled out for the idiots. You can draw endless conclusions. The Oracle said Smith is Neo's opposite, his negative...1 + (-1) = 0. Or you can say once Neo was destroyed, the equation had to "rebalance" itself again, killing Smith.
Hell, look up what the name Sati means and find out the deeper meanings of that ending.
But people don't look at it that way. The thing I find most interesting is that most reviews say it's better than Reloaded, yet give it a worse rating than Reloaded (RottenTomatoes has Reloaded at something like 76%, compared to the 36% of Revolutions).
People just didn't like that it wasn't a Hollywood ending. I will say that this movie has the most hidden religious and philosophical imagery I've ever seen...it's all way more subtle than Reloaded (who noticed the glowing cross and wings when Neo was killing Smith? Who noticed the Fibonacci sequences in the intro, and the reveal of the Machine City? Who noticed that bizarre "goathead" symbol in the Matrix code when the intro finished?).
"Sufferin' succotash."
Ok, first of all, let me just feed my ego and post this link. This is the post that I made on the subject right after Reloaded, and in it I pointed out that they *would* do the god, Christ, and reunification of man and machine plot. There, now I feel better. :)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65437&cid=60 36 019
That being said, let me just point out the main reasons this Trilogy has been ruined as a major piece of sci-fi. Note that I didn't say it made the thing sucked completely and horribly; there is a difference. The series is still awesome for what it offers, but there were many (including myself) who had expectations of sci-fi (logical) purity. Those expectations simply weren't met.
Some will argue that the Trilogy put forth the ultimate in depth and philosophy, and that the reason so many complain is because they aren't smart enough to get it. This is utter crap. People who believe this have missed the boat, and I encourage them to read something like "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect" in order to see what true sci-fi is.
In my view the difference is this: while true sci-fi asks you to believe something extraordinary, it takes great care not to break the rules that it lays down for itself. And once you accept the principle thing they are asking you to believe, you can then pursue the rest of the story as if it is more or less true science. *THAT* is, in my opinion, *true* sci-fi.
My contention, and the contention of many others, is that this Trilogy is nothing more than a collection of very cool concepts drawn from mythology and philosophy, wrapped up in an attractive action/marital arts/special effects shell. Again, this is a winning combination if you accept it for what it is, but it should *not* be mistaken for true sci-fi genius. Here's why:
1. The energy source issue is lame at best. It just doesn't work. You can keep a human vegetable alive for years with very little going on in their brain. THEY DON'T NEED THE MATRIX to keep bodies alive. If you grow humans and make them into idiots with a minimal amount of brain activity, you can just feed them for decades and they will produce all the power that they would in the Matrix. The fact that they are living out a 9-5 job in the Matrix isn't going to generate the machines any more juice than just keeping them alive. Hell, even if it DID generate more energy, would it be so much that it offset the expenditure of maintaining the Matrix? I think not. Either way, this power source issue is the ENTIRE reason for the movie. Without the use of humans as batteries there is no Matrix, no Neo, no Zion (read on to see why there would be no Zion). The entire Trilogy rests on the energy issue, and it doesn't hold water.
2. The second major problem lies in the fact that you can't build a f*cking city that deep inside the earth. Ask any scientist who's versed in the matter; it's not possible. Again, they are asking quite a bit of the viewer in this regard.
3. They never covered how Neo, a flesh and blood human, is able to exert control over machines in the real world. You see, what they did was switch everything up on us. This started as a sci-fi movie - the scorching of the sky, the underground city, and the war vs. the machines. This was the plot originally, and I think it was a good one. The fact that there was a false reality where the computers kept humans was very cool, and the fact that you could do cool shit while in the Matrix was cool. But the whole thing was laid out as science. Morpheus asks if Neo thinks he's breathing air in the simulation. Logic guided that. The fact that you have to "believe" about the jump program, again, guided by logic. At that point, they hadn't broken their own rules (even though the initial things they were asking you to believe were massive). The problem, however, is that they ended up, in the third movie, with Neo as a Christ figure who could blow up machines with a mere thought. Huh? How so?
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge