Would you introduce the Matrix Sequels to a world that doesnt have them?

[Cikomyr]

There are talks about alternate realities, and longtime internet Comedian SFDebris mentionned in a joke that itd be nice, if we ever contact alternate universes, if we could get the complete Firefly tv series (in a universe it wasn't cancelled) and Sarah Connor, while we could send them our great long-time shows that were cancelled in their universe (like MASH or DS9).

Now.. What if we received a message "in our universe, the Wachowski Brothers died before they could start filming their Matrix Sequels. We hoped you had them on your end, that movie was so popular people cant wait for its sequel!!"

Would you send it?

Do you think what Reloaded/Revolution added to the franchise is more than what it subtracted?

[Fragenstein]

I'd probable hand them over. I actually liked how Neo was just a plant by the computer overlords, and that they periodically allowed humanity to rise and fall to maintain order.

I thought it was creative. Plus the series sends a serious message in that if you let your revolutionary army party all night and then fight the next day sleep deprived and hungover, you're probably going to lose.

[Cikomyr]

Its just...

The first Matrix was not about the Human/Machine war. It was a backdrop to the movie's core story: Neo's journey of self discovery.

It was about Neo removing the lies that clouded his mind (first by the Machines, then by himself) until he finally reached Enlightnement. Once he reached the endpoint, once he was the One.. Well, that was it.

If you wanted the resolution of the Machine/Human conflict, well.. The Matrix wasnt about that. And continuing what was effectively a self contained story kind of detracted from that pure, undiluted journey we went with Neo.

[Kitten Champion]

Sure, I didn't hate the sequels. They're flawed certainly, but it's an interesting sort of flawed rather than the "I don't give a **** because I haz all the moneyz!!!1" of a Michael Bay where I feel dumber from the experience of watching a soulless cash-in on some marketable title.

That, and it is the Wachowski's movie and that of the countless people who worked on it. I think it would be kind of petty to hide it away in some dusty drawer simply because of my supposed critical disdain for it and the fact that it's in my possession.

[Rodin]

I'd probably drop Revolution. Reloaded didn't have a lot of great stuff in it, but the Smith fight and the highway sequence make the movie worthwhile. Plus, I actually really liked the Architect.

Revolution was just terrible though. Hugo Weaving did his best, but even he couldn't save that one.

[Thrudd]

After reading this guy's essays analyzing both Reloaded and Revolutions, I had a much more favorable attitude toward what the Wachowskis did. It is not so much about the technical film making aspect, which can be criticized on its own, but that these movies do appear to have a consistent message although it may be quite dense and deeply embedded in symbolism.

http://www.wylfing.net/essays/matrix_reloaded.html

http://www.wylfing.net/essays/matrix_revolutions.html

[Bulldog Psion]

I'd probably respond: "Sequels? What sequels? Never heard of 'em." :smallbiggrin:

[-D-]

I'd probably respond: "Sequels? What sequels? Never heard of 'em." :smallbiggrin:
All hail big brother. There never was a matrix.

[JoshL]

Yes, without question. I hated the second one when it came out. Years later I sat down and watched all three. I actually like the series as a whole more than I liked the first as a stand-alone film.

[danzibr]

Yes.

I think more joy would be derived from the sequels than there would be anti-joy from purists who hate them.

[Aotrs Commander]

No, because I'd be too busy looking through said alternate realities to find the "best versions", the paragons, as it were, of various franchises, shows and movies (there is no reason to assume that this reality is the one that did stuff best, of course. Nor is there a reason to presume that in another reality, the Matrix sequels couldn't have been good.)

With priority first given to cancelled shows like Invader Zim, Young justice, B5 Crusade...

Or for Star Fleet (Star Fleet X-Bomber in the US), which was going to have a second season, but there was a fire in the production facility so it never happened.

[Giggling Ghast]

I would give them Jupiter Ascending, then ask again if they truly wanted the Matrix sequels.

[Velaryon]

I'd give them the movies, but let them know that they aren't even close to as good as the original. While I didn't find either one very entertaining, they aren't the worst things ever by a long shot.

[Peelee]

Nope. Always leave 'em wanting more, I say. Better to die as the hero then live as the villain.

[Zmeoaice]

What about the Animatrix?

[Starwulf]

Like Aotrs, I'd be far to busy trying to find universes where some of my favorite shows not only didn't get cancelled, but went on to actually be entirely finished: Forever, Kyle XY, Fringe, The River, Siberia, The 11th Hour, My own Worst Enemy, Lie To Me and quite a few more.

If I had to though, yeah quite happily, I rather enjoyed both, though I liked the third more then the second.

Edit: Remembered one more, one that I really don't understand why it was cancelled considering it's ratings: Terra Nova. It has a 2.5 rating and averaged 7.2mil viewers, and a flat 2 is generally the cut-off for new shows. It was ranked as the #2 New drama show amongst viewers 18-49, and yet it got cancelled. >< Stupid Hollywood.

[BWR]

Matrix?
As far as I know, the only two fictional Matrices are the Time Lords' super computer/database and the Autobot Matrix of Leadership. I'm pretty sure those are the only two.

More seriously, the first movie was rather pretty and worked well enough until Neo woke up in the real world, at which point it got really bad. Other than that the movies were a mess and far too impressed with their own 'cleverness' and the only half-way decent character there was Agent Smith, exaggerated and silly as he was. I wanted everyone else to die horribly.

[veti]

More seriously, the first movie was rather pretty and worked well enough until Neo woke up in the real world, at which point it got really bad. Other than that the movies were a mess and far too impressed with their own 'cleverness' and the only half-way decent character there was Agent Smith, exaggerated and silly as he was. I wanted everyone else to die horribly.

I agree. I disliked the first movie, loathed the second and just sneered at the third.

Agent Smith was by far the most interesting character, but d i d n ' t space y o u space w i s h space h e space w o u l d space j u s t space s p e a k spacea space l i t t l e space f a s t e r? He must've been valedictorian for his class from the James T Kirk School of Acting.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If nothing else, bad movies should exist so we can point out what they did wrong and what they managed to do right.

[Chen]

Edit: Remembered one more, one that I really don't understand why it was cancelled considering it's ratings: Terra Nova. It has a 2.5 rating and averaged 7.2mil viewers, and a flat 2 is generally the cut-off for new shows. It was ranked as the #2 New drama show amongst viewers 18-49, and yet it got cancelled. >< Stupid Hollywood.

This one had a very interesting finale too. The problem here is that it wasn't a standard new show, but one that was apparently VERY expensive to make. I think they needed higher than standard ratings to accommodate for that.

[-D-]

To be honest, I thought they were pretty much Ok, but horribly goofy.

[Grotd]

I don't see why not. Opinion is subjective after all and maybe they'd like it over in that universe. Personally, I like Reloaded. But that's just my opinion and I don't want this thread to go off on a big which films were good argument. I'm just saying maybe they would like those films so why not.

[Psyren]

I would so they can be just as miserable as the primary timeline :smallannoyed:

Then maybe their best minds (including alternate me) would be driven to help me refine this reality-hopping technology, so we can find one where the sequels and video games were actually good, and spread those across the multiverse.

No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?

[Admiral Squish]

An interesting question.
I'd say yes. They weren't TERRIBLE, and they do have a cool overarching story, even if the second two aren't as good, and the overall science bugs the crap out of me.
I would definitely give them the Animatrix, though.

A counter-question:
Same situation, but alt-earth asks for the Star Wars Prequels.

[-D-]

A counter-question:
Same situation, but alt-earth asks for the Star Wars Prequels.
Sure, just edit Jar Jar out. No universe deserves Jar-Jar. Unless he is frozen in carbonite and sent into the Sun.

[Kitten Champion]

A counter-question:
Same situation, but alt-earth asks for the Star Wars Prequels.


I would say... yes, but would anyone ask for Star Wars prequels absent knowledge of their existence? The Matrix I could understand because the central conflict of Man versus Machine really isn't concluded, a sequel may be considered unnecessary but it's not unreasonable in much the same way Terminator or Alien kept going when they really didn't have to logically. However, did we really get anything out of the prequel trilogy that we were just chomping at the bit to know prior to it?

More generally, Star Wars absent Lucas as the creative force works just fine, better in many cases. Lucas dying and leaving the film rights to someone else could easily have led to what Disney is doing years earlier and without the prequel-era tainting it, in much the same way Roddenberry leaving TNG led to its golden age.

[Lethologica]

I would say... yes, but would anyone ask for Star Wars prequels absent knowledge of their existence?
Yes. Everyone and their cousin has at least heard of the presumably badass Clone Wars; some portion of those people would want a story about those wars.

[Dienekes]

Its just...

The first Matrix was not about the Human/Machine war. It was a backdrop to the movie's core story: Neo's journey of self discovery.

It was about Neo removing the lies that clouded his mind (first by the Machines, then by himself) until he finally reached Enlightnement. Once he reached the endpoint, once he was the One.. Well, that was it.

If you wanted the resolution of the Machine/Human conflict, well.. The Matrix wasnt about that. And continuing what was effectively a self contained story kind of detracted from that pure, undiluted journey we went with Neo.

Eh, I mean the same could be said of Luke Skywalker in Star Wars. We see him grow as a man and finally completely trust in the Force to save the day.

I still want to see him actually take down the Empire though.

[Cikomyr]

Eh, I mean the same could be said of Luke Skywalker in Star Wars. We see him grow as a man and finally completely trust in the Force to save the day.

I still want to see him actually take down the Empire though.

Not really. Destroying the Death Star is one of the main focus of the first movie. The intro is about it, the McGuffin is about it, and the climax is about it.

In the same way, the third movie is a lot about killing the Emperor. We are told he will be there in the very first scene. He appears throughout the movie, and its made clear he is the objective of the whole mission that the climax is leading to. Also, he is the main obstacle to Darth Vader's redemption, which can only be achieved through his death.

Only the second movie is about Luke's journey of self-discovery, of his past and his abilities. When he abandon that journey for selfish reasons (that he believes are selffless), he almost lose everything by further revelations he was not ready to learn.

Please note that "destruction of something Imperial" is hardly the focus of the second movie. Its mostly a character piece on Luke and Han/Leia. More driven by characters than actions.

[Rodin]

The only good things to come out of the Star Wars prequels were the Genndy Tartakovsky cartoon and the Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon/Darth Maul fight. I'd probably save those and bring only that to the parallel universe, only to watch them Pandora's Box themselves into horror as they disbelieve that the best lightsaber fights in the series come from the FIRST movie in the trilogy and a series of 3-minute cartoons and watch the prequels anyway.

For my part, I'd be searching for the parallel movies which start with the Clone Wars in progress (opening crawl for exposition explanation) and has Anakin Skywalker crippled within the first 30 minutes, then spends the rest of the movies examining his descent into the Dark Side as the Emperor exerts more and more influence and corrupts him. And yes, I mean the Emperor, not Senator Palpatine. No "Force lightning'ed into looking evil" bull, he looks evil because he's freaking EVIL and the Dark Side does that to you.

In other words, the backstory of Darth Vader that we all wanted, not the backstory of whiny kid Anakin Skywalker. A movie showing how he got the suit, and then two movies of Darth Vader being awesome.

[Psyren]

Its just...

The first Matrix was not about the Human/Machine war. It was a backdrop to the movie's core story: Neo's journey of self discovery.

It was about Neo removing the lies that clouded his mind (first by the Machines, then by himself) until he finally reached Enlightnement. Once he reached the endpoint, once he was the One.. Well, that was it.

If you wanted the resolution of the Machine/Human conflict, well.. The Matrix wasnt about that. And continuing what was effectively a self contained story kind of detracted from that pure, undiluted journey we went with Neo.

What's the bloody point of enlightenment, especially enlightenment that translates into external power, if you do nothing with it? To say that the war didn't matter makes no sense to me. It's just navel-gazing if you leave the original as a stand-alone.

I mean, I'll grant you that the first one's ending did imply he could teach others to see beyond the system's rules and erode or reshape it from within. That would have been a good way to make it stand-alone. But if he really is The One (as in, the only possible One), then what he does with that power becomes relevant.

[Cikomyr]

What's the bloody point of enlightenment, especially enlightenment that translates into external power, if you do nothing with it? To say that the war didn't matter makes no sense to me. It's just navel-gazing if you leave the original as a stand-alone.

In the Matrix's movie? Enlightenment is its own reward. Neo finally see the Matrix for what it truly is. The war was a motivation for actors around Neo, but it was not the point of the movie.


I mean, I'll grant you that the first one's ending did imply he could teach others to see beyond the system's rules and erode or reshape it from within. That would have been a good way to make it stand-alone. But if he really is The One (as in, the only possible One), then what he does with that power becomes relevant.

In fact, the very ending of the first movie kind of implies that Neo outright break the Matrix's rules. He destroys that world and rebuilds it, for he is the One who can pierce through every single lies, and awaken humanity from its deep slumber.

Neo's reach of Enlightenment (through his process of death and rebirth) really turns him, if we want to take the christian analogy, turned him into our Saviour.

[Peelee]

The only good things to come out of the Star Wars prequels were the Genndy Tartakovsky cartoon and the Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon/Darth Maul fight.

Says you. My one regret about Disney wiping the Star Wars slate clean was not tossing in the cartoon with the rest. I mean, as exciting as it is to see Jedi forget about half their powers in every episode, the characterizations were just terrible.

[Psyren]

Neo finally see the Matrix for what it truly is.

...And? That is a Beginning, not an End.


In fact, the very ending of the first movie kind of implies that Neo outright break the Matrix's rules. He destroys that world and rebuilds it, for he is the One who can pierce through every single lies, and awaken humanity from its deep slumber.

Neo's reach of Enlightenment (through his process of death and rebirth) really turns him, if we want to take the christian analogy, turned him into our Saviour.

But that still raises the question as to whether it is morally justified for him to do that. Humanity may be sleeping, but Cypher was not completely wrong - we had eliminated scarcity and created a society where everyone could taste steak or experience other pleasures of the flesh without actually harming living creatures, contracting disease et al. The only real injustice remaining was that the machines were more concerned with the veracity of their illusion and so ported in suffering to keep everyone asleep.

If Neo truly had the power to rebuild the Matrix from the ground up, he being an enlightened human rather than a misunderstanding machine could theoretically create a virtual utopia that a human mind would actually accept without waking - a true heaven. And he would be able to do so in such a way that people who chose not to live in the Matrix would have the option to leave. True freedom.

Or will he simply dismantle the whole thing and wake everyone up, even the ones who (like Cypher) actually prefer to dream? Perhaps imparting the lesson that the true meaning of life is to live it, not to be content with a facsimile? And what of the machines who, like Smith, achieve sapience of their own - what would ending the Matrix do to them? Are they not alive too?

Since he cannot both end the Matrix and leave it in place, simply being Our Savior is not enough - we need to also know the form his salvation will take. The route they took in the sequels was poorly conceived, but that doesn't mean the question itself was not worth asking and exploring further. The Wachowskis, and perhaps Hollywood itself, were simply ill-equipped to grapple with questions of that magnitude, at least at the time. In a post-Inception/LotR world however, where mainstream audiences are more okay with longer movies and deeper questions, perhaps the apple can be bitten a second time.

[Lethologica]

Most endings are conceivably beginnings. The ending of Cinderella is the start of the story of Princess Cinderella. It all depends on what arc you want to tell.

The "deep slumber" Neo is awaking people from at the end of the first movie is not the Matrix itself, but the belief that the Matrix is the real world. And that's really the Big Problem of the setting. Humans and machines are wholly interdependent, but the machines have manipulated this into a state of total dominance via the Big Lie of the Matrix. Moreover, suffering in the Matrix exists due to the need to keep up the Big Lie. Without the lie, without the ability to keep humanity unwittingly trapped in the Matrix, the machines are dependent on enough humans choosing to stay in the Matrix to keep them running. Of course, the humans are also dependent on enough humans choosing to stay in the Matrix to keep the machines running, since they have little chance of surviving real Earth on their own--so everyone has common interests here. How the reawakened human race negotiates with the machines to (a) keep the lights on, (b) make the Matrix a better place, and (c) fix the real world is left unanswered--correctly, in my opinion.

Of course, these questions are still unanswered at the end of the trilogy. The latter two movies were just the long, drawn-out process of Neo waking up humanity as he said he was going to do at the end of the first movie--except that it's ultimately the machines who return agency to humanity (offering them the opportunity to leave the Matrix), instead of Neo (as humanity's representative). So for all the philosophical blathering of Reloaded and Revolutions, all they really accomplished was a thematic regression. So much for grappling with big questions.

As for the choice about whether or not to release the Matrix sequels, my main question would be what the Wachowskis would make in their absence. Frankly, if the absence of the Matrix sequels leads to at least one good movie between Matrix and Jupiter Ascending, then it's worth not having them.

[Killer Angel]

What's the bloody point of enlightenment, especially enlightenment that translates into external power, if you do nothing with it? To say that the war didn't matter makes no sense to me. It's just navel-gazing if you leave the original as a stand-alone.

The "war" was won... inside the Matrix, no power could harm Neo, and the Matrix will be shattered. The only possible sequel, should be real war (as the siege of Zion).
Instead, we have boring fights with asian weapons against mooks.

[Psyren]

Humans and machines are wholly interdependent, but the machines have manipulated this into a state of total dominance via the Big Lie of the Matrix.

They're really not, that's the problem. They certainly don't need us for food, considering that the whole "humans as batteries" setup fails right out of the gate because that is actually losing energy overall. And the Architect himself points out "there are levels of survival we're willing to accept," i.e. they'd be fine with wiping out what's left of humanity if forced. The only thing for which they depend on Neo is stopping Smith - if Smith hadn't happened, there's be no need for him or the rest of us at all.

Sure they want to keep us around, in the simulation preferably, but it's most certainly not interdependence.

As for suffering in the Matrix - the machines simply don't understand humanity well enough to craft an acceptable world without it. It might truly be impossible to do so - but given that Neo supposedly achieved enlightenment, wouldn't that mean he knows how to do it? Or does his enlightenment stop at kung-fu mastery? His power is supposed to come from total mastery of the Matrix's rules and assumptions, yet he seems unable to use that power for anything beyond dodging bullets and punching really hard.

(Okay, he did save Trinity that one time, but still.)



As for the choice about whether or not to release the Matrix sequels, my main question would be what the Wachowskis would make in their absence. Frankly, if the absence of the Matrix sequels leads to at least one good movie between Matrix and Jupiter Ascending, then it's worth not having them.

We already got that good interim movie out of the Wachowskis - it was called Cloud Atlas, and it rocked.

[Lethologica]

They're really not, that's the problem. They certainly don't need us for food, considering that the whole "humans as batteries" setup fails right out of the gate because that is actually losing energy overall.
"Where did you learn physics, Neo?"

I know the plan was originally to have the human brains as the computational basis for the Matrix, but I work with what's in the movie.


And the Architect himself points out "there are levels of survival we're willing to accept," i.e. they'd be fine with wiping out what's left of humanity if forced. The only thing for which they depend on Neo is stopping Smith - if Smith hadn't happened, there's be no need for him or the rest of us at all.

Sure they want to keep us around, in the simulation preferably, but it's most certainly not interdependence.

As for suffering in the Matrix - the machines simply don't understand humanity well enough to craft an acceptable world without it. It might truly be impossible to do so - but given that Neo supposedly achieved enlightenment, wouldn't that mean he knows how to do it? Or does his enlightenment stop at kung-fu mastery? His power is supposed to come from total mastery of the Matrix's rules and assumptions, yet he seems unable to use that power for anything beyond dodging bullets and punching really hard.

(Okay, he did save Trinity that one time, but still.)
This is the sequels' logic. As far as the original movie is concerned, Smith is gone, the machines need the humans, and Neo's enlightenment does extend to reshaping the Matrix. And now you know why I consider the sequels a thematic regression.


We already got that good interim movie out of the Wachowskis - it was called Cloud Atlas, and it rocked.
True, forgot about that.

[Rodin]

The "war" was won... inside the Matrix, no power could harm Neo, and the Matrix will be shattered. The only possible sequel, should be real war (as the siege of Zion).
Instead, we have boring fights with asian weapons against mooks.

Thing is, nobody really wanted to see the siege of Zion. Heck, that's what Revolutions proved. They had this awesome kung-fu version of the real world to play around in, and instead chose to spend most of the movie's time in the gritty depressing real world.

Making it so Neo could only do so much in the Matrix was pretty much a requirement for the sequels and one of the few things I didn't find problematic with them. I enjoyed pretty much all of the fight scenes except for the fight between Neo and Seraph. And maybe the weird "bad guys walk on the ceiling for no benefit" fight in Revolution. And yes, that means I enjoyed the much-reviled final fight between Neo and Smith.

The plot just didn't match up to the fight scenes, which was disappointing given how good it was in the first one.

[Brother Oni]

Personally, I liked the two sequels. The fighting was a lot smoother and the set pieces were more epic in scale.
While I understand why people had issues with the plot of the two sequels, coming from a HK action movie perspective, the plot was sufficient to propel the movie between fight scenes.


What's the bloody point of enlightenment, especially enlightenment that translates into external power, if you do nothing with it? To say that the war didn't matter makes no sense to me. It's just navel-gazing if you leave the original as a stand-alone.

As Cikomyr said, enlightenment is its own reward. Getting further into that breaks board rules however.


But that still raises the question as to whether it is morally justified for him to do that. Humanity may be sleeping, but Cypher was not completely wrong - we had eliminated scarcity and created a society where everyone could taste steak or experience other pleasures of the flesh without actually harming living creatures, contracting disease et al. The only real injustice remaining was that the machines were more concerned with the veracity of their illusion and so ported in suffering to keep everyone asleep.

If Neo truly had the power to rebuild the Matrix from the ground up, he being an enlightened human rather than a misunderstanding machine could theoretically create a virtual utopia that a human mind would actually accept without waking - a true heaven. And he would be able to do so in such a way that people who chose not to live in the Matrix would have the option to leave. True freedom.

I agree that Cypher had a point and it all boils down to whether living a lie in comfort (for most people anyway) is better than living the truth at a bare subsistance level.
However the suffering the machines imported in was a necessity - they tried building an utopia at first and the human minds rejected it, so they had to rebuild the world into something humans could accept, which is turn of the 20th/21st century. Extending this to its logical conclusion, it would mean that some people's lives inside the Matrix are an absolute misery - enforced sex workers, war refugees, abuse victims, etc.

Even if Neo could rebuild the Matrix into something 'better', it still doesn't get rid of the issue that the machines had - choice, not freedom. Presumably a minimum number of minds are required to sustain the illusion for everybody, so what happens if Neo offers the choice to leave and too many people accept? Zion would be overrun with new refugees, more than its limited resources could support while the machines have to survive at a lower order of existance than before, a lose-lose situation all around.
What makes the situation worse is that the people leaving would most likely be those who don't have anything to lose (the people whose lives are an absolutely misery) but would happen if people less than sound of mind or otherwise psychologically maladjusted also took the option? I don't think Zion would have the resources to support all the counselling treatment they would need, not the ability to police and track any potential murders or serial killers that ran to the real world to escape justice in the Matrix.

[Lethologica]

I agree that Cypher had a point and it all boils down to whether living a lie in comfort (for most people anyway) is better than living the truth at a bare subsistance level.
However the suffering the machines imported in was a necessity - they tried building an utopia at first and the human minds rejected it, so they had to rebuild the world into something humans could accept, which is turn of the 20th/21st century. Extending this to its logical conclusion, it would mean that some people's lives inside the Matrix are an absolute misery - enforced sex workers, war refugees, abuse victims, etc.

Even if Neo could rebuild the Matrix into something 'better', it still doesn't get rid of the issue that the machines had - choice, not freedom. Presumably a minimum number of minds are required to sustain the illusion for everybody, so what happens if Neo offers the choice to leave and too many people accept? Zion would be overrun with new refugees, more than its limited resources could support while the machines have to survive at a lower order of existance than before, a lose-lose situation all around.
What makes the situation worse is that the people leaving would most likely be those who don't have anything to lose (the people whose lives are an absolutely misery) but would happen if people less than sound of mind or otherwise psychologically maladjusted also took the option? I don't think Zion would have the resources to support all the counselling treatment they would need, not the ability to police and track any potential murders or serial killers that ran to the real world to escape justice in the Matrix.
So, a few things.

The 'humans reject a world that's too perfect' premise is pure sequel logic. The first movie, stand-alone, works fine without it--especially since the implied conclusion is about humans choosing to awaken and reshape the Matrix. It's also a little odd given what we know about the hedonic treadmill, though we can put that aside as the first movie put thermodynamics aside.

So let's accept the imperfect world condition--the machines couldn't offer a perfect world, because it's more important to offer choice, the illusion of agency. Fine. Why does it take people whose lives are absolute misery--often beyond their control, their choice--to establish such a world? I guess it's because the machines don't understand humans well enough to imitate them in the Matrix--else much of the world's misery could be computer-generated. The Oracle implies something like this when she tells Neo the Architect doesn't truly understand choice. But in that case, we can't take the limitations on what Matrix the machines could achieve, with their poor understanding of humanity, as dispositive. Humans with better understanding of those areas where machines are lacking could, with the help of the machines, improve the world without creating rejection.

Moreover, the acceptance or rejection of potential Matrix versions is conditioned to the machines' standards--the Matrix as not only a place to live, but as something that will deceive humans into thinking it's the base reality. That doesn't mean a better world would fail the more basic test of being a place for people to live. So Neo (at the end of the first movie) has an easier job than the machines do (in the sequels) when it comes to reshaping the Matrix, because he's not constrained by making it perfectly believable.

Freedom to leave the Matrix is a tough point...but you do have the tools to make it work. A "this is what it's actually like to live in Zion" and "this is what it'd actually be like to live in Zion if everyone chose to leave" simulator would be a good start.

[Rodin]

The 'humans reject a world that's too perfect' premise is pure sequel logic. The first movie, stand-alone, works fine without it--especially since the implied conclusion is about humans choosing to awaken and reshape the Matrix. It's also a little odd given what we know about the hedonic treadmill, though we can put that aside as the first movie put thermodynamics aside.


Hang on, doesn't Smith talk about the imperfect Matrix in the very first movie, before the sequels were more than a twinkle in the Wachowski's eyes?

[Killer Angel]

Thing is, nobody really wanted to see the siege of Zion.

Speak for yourself. Mecha with heavy machine-guns: what's not to like? :smallwink:

[Brother Oni]

The 'humans reject a world that's too perfect' premise is pure sequel logic. The first movie, stand-alone, works fine without it--especially since the implied conclusion is about humans choosing to awaken and reshape the Matrix. It's also a little odd given what we know about the hedonic treadmill, though we can put that aside as the first movie put thermodynamics aside.

As Rodin said, Agent Smith mentions this in the first film during Morpheus' interrogation:

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost.
Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that as a species that human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. I say "your civilization" because as soon as we started thinking for you, it really became our civilization which is, of course what this is all about.

Evolution, Morpheus. Evolution. Like the dinosaur.

Look out that window. You had your time. This future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time.

So it's possible that you're right, that the machines are unable to understand human psychology well enough to make a 'perfect world'. The question then arises of why would Neo be any better at it? I find it hard to believe that simple qualifer of him being human is sufficient for his ability to make a better or more perfect world.
In any case, when he's re-integrated back into the Matrix at the end of the third film, the machines would be able to make an 'improved version' of the world where everyone would indeed be happy.

However there will still be people who would want to leave just because the Matrix isn't the truth - the problem is then, how do you offer the choice to the right people, in a way that would make both Zion humans and the machines happy and without the knowledge being leaked to the wrong people.



So Neo (at the end of the first movie) has an easier job than the machines do (in the sequels) when it comes to reshaping the Matrix, because he's not constrained by making it perfectly believable.

While true, it still boils down to whether people would accept living in a better world that's not real, or whether the inconsistencies in a world not being perfectly believable would cause another Matrix crash.

Bear in mind that the machines have evidence that a perfect world is too unbelievable, so they may put up resistance as to how much tweaking they would permit.

There's a number of other films where a population is kept in utopic conditions (off the top of my head, the first part of The Island) and the things wrong with it (or just people curious about how it all works) cause the downfall of the society by the end of it. What's to say the samething won't happen here with Neo's better but unbelievable world?


Speak for yourself. Mecha with heavy machine-guns: what's not to like? :smallwink:

I personally think the siege of Zion could have been its own film or spun out into a separate episode. I would have watched/played it at least.

[Rodin]

Speak for yourself. Mecha with heavy machine-guns: what's not to like? :smallwink:

The fact that they strapped the squishy humans to the OUTSIDE of the giant heavily armored mecha with machine-guns?

The Battle of Zion was a tactical disaster on so many levels it isn't even funny. I facepalmed my way through the whole thing.

[Psyren]

As Cikomyr said, enlightenment is its own reward. Getting further into that breaks board rules however.

There a multitudes suffering and Neo has the power to do something about it. Even if you believe the humans still asleep in the Matrix are perfectly fine staying there, the 250k that have "woken up" and live in Zion do so in constant fear/hatred of the machines swirling overhead, not to mention their very austere surroundings. And lest we forget, every time The One serves his purpose, those 250k lives are extinguished and the whole thing is rebooted.

So no, one person becoming enlightened then roll credits is not good enough. Either he has to be able to teach his trick to others, or broker lasting peace between the humans and machines, or remake the Matrix into something better, or rip away the illusion so everyone can save the real planet they live on - literally anything besides serenely contemplating his navel for eternity while the cycle of slaughter and false hope continues unabated.



I agree that Cypher had a point and it all boils down to whether living a lie in comfort (for most people anyway) is better than living the truth at a bare subsistance level.
However the suffering the machines imported in was a necessity - they tried building an utopia at first and the human minds rejected it, so they had to rebuild the world into something humans could accept, which is turn of the 20th/21st century. Extending this to its logical conclusion, it would mean that some people's lives inside the Matrix are an absolute misery - enforced sex workers, war refugees, abuse victims, etc.

The fact that a machine is incapable of creating a utopia that a human mind can accept, does not mean that such a thing is impossible. Only that it's impossible for a machine. As I've said repeatedly, the whole point of true enlightenment is that you can resolve dilemmas like this. If you can't, in what way are you enlightened? Or does his understanding of the universe extend only to pedestrian problems like bullet trajectories? How lame is that?



Even if Neo could rebuild the Matrix into something 'better', it still doesn't get rid of the issue that the machines had - choice, not freedom. Presumably a minimum number of minds are required to sustain the illusion for everybody, so what happens if Neo offers the choice to leave and too many people accept? Zion would be overrun with new refugees, more than its limited resources could support while the machines have to survive at a lower order of existance than before, a lose-lose situation all around.
What makes the situation worse is that the people leaving would most likely be those who don't have anything to lose (the people whose lives are an absolutely misery) but would happen if people less than sound of mind or otherwise psychologically maladjusted also took the option? I don't think Zion would have the resources to support all the counselling treatment they would need, not the ability to police and track any potential murders or serial killers that ran to the real world to escape justice in the Matrix.

Zion has limited resources because the machines are encroaching on their borders, remember? Clearly there is much more potential energy in the planet than that, or the machines wouldn't be able to function. You're talking about a closed system here - if there are more humans awake, there are fewer sleepers to tend to, ergo less machines are needed, ergo whatever power source and space those machines and sleepers needed can be converted to living space and power for the redpills, etc etc.

[AvatarVecna]

The original Matrix movie was a B+ movie at best that only got as popular as it did because it introduced a modicum of intelligent-sounding philisophical discussions and never-before-seen special effects into a genre that was lacking both intelligence and visually entertaining SFX; the original Matrix mixed things up. A large part of the reason the sequels suck is that they have both of those things, but because of the original, both of the things that made the Matrix great became incredibly overused, from the effects to the philosophy discussions in between action scenes. And with neither of those things to distract from the rest of the movie, their B+ nature was revealed, and everybody who was expecting an epic saga instead got...robo-Jesus the otaku technomancer. And everybody died. And Zion was destroyed. And this has all happened several times, and the cycle's never been broken, and likely never will. Humanity will always be a slave because they're incredibly predictable and easy to manipulate by machines that give no ****s for how immoral such manipulation is.

And that's why we should share the sequels. Because while the original Matrix is a great movie on its own, the bad stuff is just as much a part of the series as the original, and it's helped us understand what was good about the Matrix, and what wasn't.

[Cikomyr]

The original Matrix movie was a B+ movie at best that only got as popular as it did because it introduced a modicum of intelligent-sounding philisophical discussions and never-before-seen special effects into a genre that was lacking both intelligence and visually entertaining SFX; the original Matrix mixed things up. A large part of the reason the sequels suck is that they have both of those things, but because of the original, both of the things that made the Matrix great became incredibly overused, from the effects to the philosophy discussions in between action scenes. And with neither of those things to distract from the rest of the movie, their B+ nature was revealed, and everybody who was expecting an epic saga instead got...robo-Jesus the otaku technomancer. And everybody died. And Zion was destroyed. And this has all happened several times, and the cycle's never been broken, and likely never will. Humanity will always be a slave because they're incredibly predictable and easy to manipulate by machines that give no ****s for how immoral such manipulation is.

And that's why we should share the sequels. Because while the original Matrix is a great movie on its own, the bad stuff is just as much a part of the series as the original, and it's helped us understand what was good about the Matrix, and what wasn't.

I am not sure you even understand the meaning of "B Movie". Its not a grade of quality.

[Lethologica]

Hang on, doesn't Smith talk about the imperfect Matrix in the very first movie, before the sequels were more than a twinkle in the Wachowski's eyes?
Mea culpa. I was remembering the Architect's tangled exposition and the bit of Smith's little Hannibal speech that stuck with me was the virus analogy.

[Killer Angel]

The fact that they strapped the squishy humans to the OUTSIDE of the giant heavily armored mecha with machine-guns?

The Battle of Zion was a tactical disaster on so many levels it isn't even funny. I facepalmed my way through the whole thing.

That's only the bad application of a cool concept. :smalltongue:

Seriously, despite it's ridiculousness, it's the sequence I remember more clearly of the whole film.

[AvatarVecna]

I am not sure you even understand the meaning of "B Movie". Its not a grade of quality.

Even if my understanding of this particular bit of moviegoer slang is far off target, my position on the artistic worth of these movies can still be understood.

[Rogar Demonblud]

That's only the bad application of a cool concept. :smalltongue:

Seriously, despite it's ridiculousness, it's the sequence I remember more clearly of the whole film.

Really? Having the humans on the outside is the only problem? Not the lack of gunsights, the low speed and stability issues, the huge blind spot to the back and sides...

They'd have been better of with a low profile tracked vehicle. Speed, stability, armor, the whole package.

Really, the Matrix trilogy is something you can find more things wrong with each re-watch.

[Chen]

Really? Having the humans on the outside is the only problem? Not the lack of gunsights, the low speed and stability issues, the huge blind spot to the back and sides...

They'd have been better of with a low profile tracked vehicle. Speed, stability, armor, the whole package.

Really, the Matrix trilogy is something you can find more things wrong with each re-watch.

I think they meant the concept of human powered armor at all. I mean seriously just having a bunch of turrets near the door and all the command structures would probably have been better.

Or really a LONG tube that they could launch EMPs through from their safe lower levels. That probably would have been WAY more efficient. Really the whole dock area should have just been the gate and a huge open space where they could set of EMPs with no problems.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Even if my understanding of this particular bit of moviegoer slang is far off target, my position on the artistic worth of these movies can still be understood.

B-movie isn't slang, at least not originally.

It refers to when multiple films were shown in one set. The B-movie is like the supporting act in a music gig while the a-movie would be the headliner equivalent.

Most science fiction films were b-movies. It literally applies to a lot of old films and is applied via analogy to films that were not b-movies due to that system disappearing but are reminicent of ones that were.

B+ movie makes no sense, its not an exam score.

[Lethologica]

B+ movie makes no sense, its not an exam score.
...Ken if I vants it to be! (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20070207#.Vb-3rPll-ds)

[Starwulf]

B-movie isn't slang, at least not originally.

It refers to when multiple films were shown in one set. The B-movie is like the supporting act in a music gig while the a-movie would be the headliner equivalent.

Most science fiction films were b-movies. It literally applies to a lot of old films and is applied via analogy to films that were not b-movies due to that system disappearing but are reminicent of ones that were.

B+ movie makes no sense, its not an exam score.

Giving something a grade is extremely common, you are literally just picking at one thing the poor guy said and ripping into him for no reason. I understood him perfectly, and I am sure many others understood him perfectly. You did your job in correcting him, he responded, said he understood and that he figured people would get the gist, and yet you insist on still harping on the subject.

I mean, have you really never talked to a friend or family member and said "I give this movie a B+", or "I give the movie an A". Or say something similar in regards to video games, or books. I know I certainly have.

[Cikomyr]

B-movie isn't slang, at least not originally.

It refers to when multiple films were shown in one set. The B-movie is like the supporting act in a music gig while the a-movie would be the headliner equivalent.

Most science fiction films were b-movies. It literally applies to a lot of old films and is applied via analogy to films that were not b-movies due to that system disappearing but are reminicent of ones that were.

B+ movie makes no sense, its not an exam score.

B-movie wouldnt also apply to secondary pictures publishers had to pick up/finance to get the rights for a movie they were really interested in?

For example, Intertainment AG was forced to pick up Battlefield Earth to get the rights to Whole Nine Yards and Art of War. Usually, the "dead weight" was the B-movie

[Cikomyr]

Giving something a grade is extremely common, you are literally just picking at one thing the poor guy said and ripping into him for no reason. I understood him perfectly, and I am sure many others understood him perfectly. You did your job in correcting him, he responded, said he understood and that he figured people would get the gist, and yet you insist on still harping on the subject.

I mean, have you really never talked to a friend or family member and said "I give this movie a B+", or "I give the movie an A". Or say something similar in regards to video games, or books. I know I certainly have.

The rest of his post is purely subjective opinion, a matter of personal taste. There is nothing to pick there; he is more than entitled to his opinion, but there is no point debating it.

[Telonius]

From the situation in the OP, here would be my response:

"Okay, so somebody must have created their own sequels, right? The demand would have been overwhelming, with a hot property like that. Tell you what, send your post-Wachowski sequels over here, and I'll be happy to give you ours."

[Cikomyr]

From the situation in the OP, here would be my response:

"Okay, so somebody must have created their own sequels, right? The demand would have been overwhelming, with a hot property like that. Tell you what, send your post-Wachowski sequels over here, and I'll be happy to give you ours."

Okay. I think many people here gave their opinions regarding the Matrix, and giving ut away.

Now, how about the other way around? What if you asked for the later seasons of Firefly, and they answer: "Are you sure? The show kind of went downhill after the first season".

Would you want to preserve your idea of what a great, yet short series the show was, or you want to take a chance?

[Rodin]

Okay. I think many people here gave their opinions regarding the Matrix, and giving ut away.

Now, how about the other way around? What if you asked for the later seasons of Firefly, and they answer: "Are you sure? The show kind of went downhill after the first season".

Would you want to preserve your idea of what a great, yet short series the show was, or you want to take a chance?

I would probably want to take a chance. Most series take several seasons to really go downhill, so the odds are that we'd get at least a season or two of good Firefly before the collapse.

I consider it to be like Babylon 5's fifth season - you ignore 90% of it and pick out the 10% that is of similar quality to the first 4 seasons. For example, losing season 5 means missing out on "The Long Night of Londo Mollari", which is one of THE best Londo/G'Kar episodes in the show.

[Psyren]

Okay. I think many people here gave their opinions regarding the Matrix, and giving ut away.

Now, how about the other way around? What if you asked for the later seasons of Firefly, and they answer: "Are you sure? The show kind of went downhill after the first season".

Would you want to preserve your idea of what a great, yet short series the show was, or you want to take a chance?

Ooh, good question. Personally I'd say yes, I'd rather know than not know. Plus - just as we're seeing here with the Matrix discussion - knowing how things were actually done, even if done badly, gives us a springboard from which to debate and say "it would have been better if they only did this." Hindsight is 20/20 and it's a lot easier to speculate on how to fix something than it is to invent it from scratch.

[Cikomyr]

Ooh, good question. Personally I'd say yes, I'd rather know than not know. Plus - just as we're seeing here with the Matrix discussion - knowing how things were actually done, even if done badly, gives us a springboard from which to debate and say "it would have been better if they only did this." Hindsight is 20/20 and it's a lot easier to speculate on how to fix something than it is to invent it from scratch.

What if they said:

"That crap? It bombed so badly Joss Whedon hasnt been entrusted to any project since. And that Nathan Fillion guy is now working as a plumber"

:-P

[Psyren]

Then I'd really want to see it. Even the Star Wars Holiday Special wasn't a career-ender!

[Cikomyr]

Then I'd really want to see it. Even the Star Wars Holiday Special wasn't a career-ender!

Hahahahaha

Point!!

[Kitten Champion]

Nothing can stop Nathan Fillion. He's kept Castle on the air for like a decade despite all evidence demonstrating the series has jumped ALL THE SHARKS!!! years ago.

The only conclusion I could draw from such a revelation would be that this was in fact the Mirror Universe I was peering into.

[TeChameleon]

Y'know, I never really entirely understood the hate the Matrix sequels draw. I suspect that at least in part it's because they subvert the Hero's Journey fairly radically, but for me, that was part of the appeal. That being said, I do tend to agree that the sequels suffered from being both overhyped and using tropes that, through no real fault of their own, were badly overexposed by the time they came out- Hollywood's typical 'follow-the-leader' and all that. Of course, I could have lived my entire life quite happily without that rave/Keanu Reeve's *** scene in Reloaded >.<

The sequels also suffered from a lot of navel-gazing, self-indulgent bloviating on the human condition and the nature of consciousness- stuff that could potentially have been fascinating if it had been handled correctly, but it really wasn't- while things that I thought could have been rather interesting- the developing independence of the machine consciousnesses and the nature of of their largely self-defined 'reality', especially since they would require consensus in order to be able to interact on even the most basic of levels, or even the Exiled Programs and what was up with them (particularly if the movie version of the explanation could avoid the gratuitous overuse of the word 'code' that the Matrix Online version had)

Also, just as an aside, the whole 'unarmoured mechs' thing was actually explained in the Animatrix- I know that revealing important info in supplementary media is something of a cardinal sin, but at least it wasn't just stupidity that led to it... oh, and for those wondering, I'm referring to the scene in The Second Renaissance, Part II where a much-more-heavily-armoured, but still clear predecessor to the Zion mech suits, gets peeled open like a boiled prawn by a Sentinel. If armour is functionally useless, then there really isn't a lot of point in lumbering your mech with it, given that all it can actually do is reduce mobility, storage capacity, and fuel efficiency. Rather like post-(efficient) firearm cavalry didn't bother with plate armour.

That being said, The Second Renaissance shorts introduced a completely different, and much, much larger plot hole... it showed the machine homeland getting nuked, which was ineffective, since they machines were somehow immune to the heat and radiation. Even if we ignore that the machines were somehow immune to being vaporized by 'heat' that was greater than the surface of the sun, what's the other primary effect of a nuke? Oh yeah. An Electro-Magnetic Pulse. Uhm...

Oh well. No worries.