Matrix 4 / The Matrix Resurrections

[warty goblin]

I too very much liked the Architect scene in Reloaded, it was about the only moment of the film I thought was actually genuinely good and seriously engaged with its own concept.

To me, it does several things at once. Firstly it provides a genuine Machine perspective on the Mayeix, and on free will itself - the remainder of an unbalanced equation. Note that this tells us that choice is real, and cannot be fully accounted for, and it does so in the least fluffy, most technically precise language one could smuggle into an action movie. Literally telling us that choice is real and cannot be entirely predicted is kinda a big deal in a movie about, you know, free will.

The second thing it does is recontextualize literally everything that happened previously as not being glorious rebellion but part of the system of control; the Matrix as a system extends far beyond the bounds of the simulation itself. The prophesied hero is just another cog in the machine; prophesy is another instrument of control. Even the One's morality is a method of control, seemingly forcing him to choose the perpetuation of the Matrix as the only moral option.

And I really love the detached delivery of all this, driving home that to the Architect this is just another Wednesday at the office. It's actually like two intelligent people talking about a complex concept, nobody yells or gets angry (except the previous TV Neos who all fundamentally failed to challenge the Matrix). It's a very different climax than the loud self actualization of the last movie, and it works fantastically for me.

[Ramza00]

I think the words "if you want it to be good" can be taken as read as a suffix to the "you need to do x..."

Does anybody actually think the Architect scene in Reloaded was good? Do the directors? If so, that's concerning.

I have heard defences of the scene claiming that it's not as bad as people say, because while it's often talked about as if it's total gibberish the Architect does actually answer some questions. But, firstly "less bad" does not equal "good", and secondly, any relevant information delivered by the Architect is delivered so badly that the majority of viewers come away from that scene not taking any of it in.

While you can defend almost anything as artistic choice up to a point, not all artistic choices are good. If you're annoying and/or boring your audience to the point that they stop paying attention - as almost all viewers did during that scene - that's just straightforwardly bad storytelling, and by extension bad filmmaking too. If it's intentional, then that just means it's deliberately, rather than incidentally, bad.

It is inverting the Hero’s Journey Hollywood playbook where it is always tension but the hero still is triumphant at the low point of a story.

The world is broken, always has been, the creator of the world is a [censored] [censored] who is a condescending white man (not literally since he is a program / machine), who sees humans like ants who drive his perfect machine. You are not supposed to like him. Likewise learning the truth of things is not always some form of beauty, it can be depressing and other words. Nor can you punch your father , Attack and Dethrone God.

This is literally the Hero’s Journey (but now how it is usually told in Hollywood) , with the descent into the Underworld and crossing the threshold of the abyss. But when people talk about movies, 3 Act structures, etc they often want you to remain enchanted, to feel the magic. To play in the realm of absence/presence where your body and brain is excited even though part of your brain knows it is not real it is merely a movie.

It does so by making the truth of “The Matrix” feel like our world, our real world, so boring and banal like concrete. Death is coming and there is nothing Neo can do that can stop it.

—————

And that is the magic of the later scenes. The 3rd movie is about learning to continue and go on, to still fight and be heroic in a broken world. To still make choices for you are fighting for Zion, or for Trinity, or for Sati, or for (looks up the names) Kid, Mifune, Zee, and Charra.

I am of the opinion the 3rd movie is more moving to you the older you get, or if you struggled with various disabilities, and/or depression plus anxiety. While Matrix 1 and 2 is about being superhuman the scene starting with KFC man being a bad dad reminds you are human and that is okay, the world is broken like a broken phone screen, but if the phone still works take delight in that fact, for life is still worth living even with its imperfections. The world is not clean or elegant and that is okay.

—————

So yes I argue the Architect scene is good. You should not judge it as one scene all by itself (it is actually two scenes spanned over 7.5 minutes with a brief interlude where you see the plan is failing inside the green matrix), you should see why the directors are inserting a bitter pill to swallow. You may take the red or blue pill as choice, as an act of liberation, but the reality principle is always another pill you have to take afterwards the yin to the yang, and then you get to make another choice after that. Choices and Reality Principle, again and again, ad infinitum, “C’est la vie” as The Merovingian might say.

[Psyren]

Does anybody actually think the Architect scene in Reloaded was good? Do the directors? If so, that's concerning.

I'm sure there are folks who like/defend it, as evidenced in this thread. But if you're looking for folks who don't, the Loki showrunners were explicitly using the Architect scene as an example of what not to do when it came time for their big expository reveal, and they appear to have knocked theirs out of the park as a result.

[Ramza00]

I'm sure there are folks who like/defend it, as evidenced in this thread. But if you're looking for folks who don't, the Loki showrunners were explicitly using the Architect scene as an example of what not to do when it came time for their big expository reveal, and they appear to have knocked theirs out of the park as a result.

Do you want to Last Jedi your story or not? Well it depends on the goals of the writers, directors, other creatives in the project, etc.

Both choices in the fork in the road are valid. Party of storytelling is sometimes reminding the reader they think they are watching X movie, but when in reality they are watching Y movie. It is misdirection but that is okay for that is life.

Much like how Knives Out is a mix of genres shifting between a Crime-Caiper, and Who Dun It (aka a mystery), the blending of genres when done can make things more interesting but it also has the possibility of disappointment and audience fall out. Likewise though not mixing the genres may not have gotten them excited in the first place. The matrix trilogy, even the first one, is using multiple genres to “spellbind” the audience and build and keep excitement, likewise it is purposefully doing genre shifting like gear shifting to control this spellbinding effect and cause de-escalation on purpose. This is because The Matrix Trilogy much like The Last Jedi or Knives Out are movies built around the flow of information and the director having absolute control over it. The Matrix trilogy is a mystery box show, and unlike JJ Abrams there was an actually planned Mystery inside of that box.

—————

Loki made a different choice for what that scene is doing and it’s long time purpose is different than the Matrix Reloaded. You can not examine the scenes by themselves, you have to look at how the individual scenes fit in the larger story to create a narrative and to manage the flow of various forms of tension, excitement, delight, beats, etc.

[warty goblin]

I'm sure there are folks who like/defend it, as evidenced in this thread. But if you're looking for folks who don't, the Loki showrunners were explicitly using the Architect scene as an example of what not to do when it came time for their big expository reveal, and they appear to have knocked theirs out of the park as a result.

I dunno, I watched that when you posted the link earlier, and it was bog standard Marvel villain babble with some pretty cgi in the background. It was entirely rote, and pretty much just dull to me; the answer to everything is a bad guy who just wants power is about as interesting a revelation at the end of a Marvel thing as finding out that rice is generally white.

[Psyren]

I dunno, I watched that when you posted the link earlier, and it was bog standard Marvel villain babble with some pretty cgi in the background. It was entirely rote, and pretty much just dull to me; the answer to everything is a bad guy who just wants power is about as interesting a revelation at the end of a Marvel thing as finding out that rice is generally white.

If you think HWR just wanted power you weren't paying attention to the scene.

Loki made a different choice for what that scene is doing and it’s long time purpose is different than the Matrix Reloaded. You can not examine the scenes by themselves, you have to look at how the individual scenes fit in the larger story to create a narrative and to manage the flow of various forms of tension, excitement, delight, beats, etc.

I can and will compare the two scenes of a hitherto unseen puppet master, who sees not the protagonist but themselves as the hero, and who has not just engineered the arduous journey the heroes took to reach him but the metaphysics of the world itself - tasked with dumping exposition onto both the protagonist(s) and the audience that will reframe the conflict they have been fighting toward for the entire work by revealing the consequences behind each choice they must make at the end. Just as the writers did.

[Ramza00]

I can and will compare the two scenes of a hitherto unseen puppet master, who sees not the protagonist but themselves as the hero, and who has not just engineered the arduous journey the heroes took to reach him but the metaphysics of the world itself - tasked with dumping exposition onto both the protagonist(s) and the audience that will reframe the conflict they have been fighting toward for the entire work by revealing the consequences behind each choice they must make at the end. Just as the writers did.

If you say so Ozymandias

“Adrian Veidt: I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end.
Dr. Manhattan: 'In the end'? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.”

Points to the Oracle sign on top of her kitchen. It is the Latin version of the Egyptian maxim that first appeared on the outer temple walls that Ozymandias built around an earlier temple.

What do you see?

[Psyren]

When you call me a name like "Ozymandias" (and yes, I do know the poem), it doesn't exactly come off as flattering.

But as far as believing the Architect scene in the Matrix Reloaded was the wrong creative choice - yes, I do believe that. (Granted, the memes and parodies were pretty enjoyable, so some good came out of it.)

[Vahnavoi]

If that's an open question, six years ago. I've watched the Matrix and Animatrix more personally. I still think the first Matrix has a great soundtrack.

I specifically meant it for the person I quoted. But since you replied, I might as well explain why I'm asking: Human memory is not stabile. If it's been years since you last saw a movie, your opinion it, and your memory of what opinion you had of it, might both have more to do with what other people around you keep saying of it than they have to do with the movie itself.

Personally, I watched the movie trilogy plus what I could find of Animatrix year and a half ago. The architecht scene was comedy gold and explaining all the details and philosophy that's obscure to someone watching it for the first time greatly enhanced the experience. Though I don't recall being bummed out by that scene when I first saw the movie back when it was released in theaters. I was more bummed out by constant action that didn't go anywhere.

[Tyndmyr]

People disagree with you, the directors disagree with you, and last it is okay you have your own opinion. But while you have your own opinion, the story and the storytellers do not NEED to do anything.

Just like you did not NEED to quote me and in that quote YOU insert foreign characters into the quotation that were not originally there

Huh, no idea how those oddball characters ended up in there. Wasn't goin' for that.

Anyways, I think the impression that the sequels were not as good as the original is...fairly common, and the scenes I see complained about, well, there's a good deal of agreement.

There's one or two technical complaints as well...the CGI in revolutions where Neo is using a street sign as a staff to fight the many Smiths looks...really fake. But probably that won't be an issue in the modern sequel. Tech is just less likely to be a concern nowadays, but directorial choices are, well, always up for criticism. Being the director of a film doesn't make you immune to criticism or judgement, after all, Tommy Wiseau directed the Room, and pretty much everyone is up for poking fun at him/the film.

I would agree with those who say that Loki took the same basic concept, and executed it far, far better. See, I actually love the whole trope of the big adversaries having a big ol' talk off. Done right, it can be filled with suspension and tension. Problem is, if you're gonna have to have a big ol' block of talking, you need the situation to shift over the course of the conversation. In Loki, it does. Who has the upper hand shifts around, and of course, we even have shifting allegiances. With Neo vs the Architect, we don't have this. It is largely expository, and there is no real change in what each person wants, in their relative positions, nor in anything else. As a scene, it is remarkably static, particularly for its length.

Sure, it contains some information, but it's...largely already information anticipated by the audience. "more layers of control"....cmon, we'd all been speculating that there would turn out to be another layer of matrix layered over the original. We all *expected* the machines to have additional layers of control. It's literally what they do. Even the knowledge of prior iterations is not wholly news...we knew from the first movie that earlier attempts had existed from the Smith/Morpheus interrogation. The philosophy stuff is, well, not exactly deep, and largely not exploring any new ground. The whole control/free will thing wasn't much more than talking about themes we'd seen explored far more visually.

There's nothing wrong with a confrontation, but it needs to be handled differently. Perhaps the antagonist should actually care about the choice and stakes. After all, if this is just another tuesday to him, why are we, the audience invested in its importance? And why should it be just another tuesday when it is one of the rare points that his entire system depends upon to continue?

I was thinking about poking the mirror and how that happened only once in the original trilogy. But you are right the spoon counts as well ("Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself") and I am probably forgetting other reflections.

The mirror poking sequence must have been a pain. CGI being what it was back then, that kind of mucking with reflectivity...it might not get the appreciation of the slow-mo shots, but I bet some serious work went into getting it right.

The iconic moment of Neo choosing pills is also shot off the reflection of Morpheus's glasses. I think there were more? Definitely not uncommon to see part of a scene reflected in the shades of another character, though that may not always have any sort of deeper meaning. I'm pretty sure the helicopter crash into the building was filmed as a reflective shot, but I'm not 100% on that. It's been a minute since I've seen it. Maybe a few years? There was a re-showing in theaters, and the film had aged quite well, still a delight to watch on the big screen.

And, while not all of the sequels measure up to that, I have enjoyed the whole Merovingian sequence. Digging into the nature of outdated programs and stuff added some depth to the world, and helped to set up additional stakes that would matter to someone with Neo's new abilities.

Edit: We also know of the iterations prior to the Architect's speech because of the Merovingian's line of "I have survived your predecessors, and I will survive you." That...pretty strongly indicates that this Neo is one of many.

[Ramza00]

Huh, no idea how those oddball characters ended up in there. Wasn't goin' for that.

Cool moving on.

Anyways, I think the impression that the sequels were not as good as the original is...fairly common, and the scenes I see complained about, well, there's a good deal of agreement.

There's one or two technical complaints as well...the CGI in revolutions where Neo is using a street sign as a staff to fight the many Smiths looks...really fake. But probably that won't be an issue in the modern sequel. Tech is just less likely to be a concern nowadays, but directorial choices are, well, always up for criticism. Being the director of a film doesn't make you immune to criticism or judgement, after all, Tommy Wiseau directed the Room, and pretty much everyone is up for poking fun at him/the film.

I would agree with those who say that Loki took the same basic concept, and executed it far, far better. See, I actually love the whole trope of the big adversaries having a big ol' talk off. Done right, it can be filled with suspension and tension. Problem is, if you're gonna have to have a big ol' block of talking, you need the situation to shift over the course of the conversation. In Loki, it does. Who has the upper hand shifts around, and of course, we even have shifting allegiances. With Neo vs the Architect, we don't have this. It is largely expository, and there is no real change in what each person wants, in their relative positions, nor in anything else. As a scene, it is remarkably static, particularly for its length.

Sure, it contains some information, but it's...largely already information anticipated by the audience. "more layers of control"....cmon, we'd all been speculating that there would turn out to be another layer of matrix layered over the original. We all *expected* the machines to have additional layers of control. It's literally what they do. Even the knowledge of prior iterations is not wholly news...we knew from the first movie that earlier attempts had existed from the Smith/Morpheus interrogation. The philosophy stuff is, well, not exactly deep, and largely not exploring any new ground. The whole control/free will thing wasn't much more than talking about themes we'd seen explored far more visually.

There's nothing wrong with a confrontation, but it needs to be handled differently. Perhaps the antagonist should actually care about the choice and stakes. After all, if this is just another tuesday to him, why are we, the audience invested in its importance? And why should it be just another tuesday when it is one of the rare points that his entire system depends upon to continue?

It was also the third talk off by a villain / antagonist character in a 2 hour movie, all 3 of them Narcissistic (Smith, Merovingian, and “The” Architect). Likewise we had other talk offs by non antagonistic characters like The Oracle, Locke, Morpheus, the old guy who is on the council stating we live with machines and there will always be mystery and obscura in the human cognition and thus he has problems sleeping, etc.

Comparing a 40 minute episode of Loki where there is only one talk off is once again taking the scene individually and not seeing how that scene is in a larger pattern. Part of the Architect thing is it at the end of a long two hour movie, and how he gives an answer but it is not the answer Neo wants (and Neo figured this out faster than the others), much like how all the monologues by antagonists and more neutral characters are not the answer Neo wants. The Matrix series “well this movie is about Kung Fu, intended for Philosophy Majors”. (This is a riff on a Patrick H Willems t-shirt about Star Wars https://store.nebula.app/products/pa...izards-t-shirt )

By ending all the monologues with the most condescending one, one with no charisma only with contempt it teaches Neo to stop looking for answers in the outside world. To now do action and to look for internal answers. More Kung fun and less enlightened. It is like that famous monk Linji Yixuan quote which I will not say for I am not sure how this forum would view Buddhism on the philosophy vs religion scale. (You can Google it)

The architect was merely there to close one door / path to give Neo the freedom to find his own path / way. No more oracles, no more architects, just a Kung Fu Hero tired of false prophecies and bad faith beliefs trying his best to save Zion, his people he has adopted.

—————

The Architect is no different than Ozymandias from Watchmen which I quoted earlier. He is a narcissist obsessed with his own creation / reflection. He may be “god-like” but he has killed thousands / perhaps far more to achieve his new world. That is a pejorative of a God “to see his creation move” whether it is Ozymandias, or The Architect, or He Who Remains from Loki.

What was that Roman historian quote about Caesars again (other Narcissists)

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium, atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call “this” empire, and where they make a desert, they call “it” peace.

By making the KFC man, the Architect condescending and rude it taught us the viewers to stop listen to charismatic affect of the Narcissists like Smith and The Merovingian. We listened to the words which were true and we found them disappointing, philosophy is not always for enlightened and mystical experiences sometimes it is there to instill the reality principle. It taught us to act and save Trinity, or to be like Trinity and just threaten to shoot the French Man in his nightclub. To act not just to think or to feel.

[Traab]

My main problem with reloaded wasnt the architect or any other talking scenes, those are a part of the matrix to me as at it core its a philosophical story with blurry fisticuffs. To me what made the movie suck was neo going from chosen one to god in between the first and second film where they had to literally teleport him to the Himalayas just so we could have a fight scene that wasnt boring. If your main character is so overpowered you need to find excuses for him to not take part in the action in your action film, because as soon as he shows up the battle is over, you done goofed imo. He was sidelined by the merovingion, sidelined by the architect, and both times it was done so the other characters had an excuse to do something. And both times he swoops in at the end and saves the day, because thats what happens when you have god on your side. The fight against smith only lasted longer than three seconds because they produced an endless swarm for neo to beat the tar out of. At least in the third film they let smith be strong enough to stand up to him one on one. It would have been far better imo if neo had spent the second film learning how to BE a god in the system, smith overwhelming him in their big one man army fight where neo had to escape (more than he did in the actual film) then by the third he was ready to face smith for the final time. It was just too big of a power jump for the second film.

[Tyndmyr]

It was also the third talk off by a villain / antagonist character in a 2 hour movie, all 3 of them Narcissistic (Smith, Merovingian, and “The” Architect). Likewise we had other talk offs by non antagonistic characters like The Oracle, Locke, Morpheus, the old guy who is on the council stating we live with machines and there will always be mystery and obscura in the human cognition and thus he has problems sleeping, etc.

Yes. That's worse. That's WAY worse.

Not every part of a film needs to be action packed, but when you've built your film on action sequences, one talk off after another eventually just gets dull.

Comparing a 40 minute episode of Loki where there is only one talk off is once again taking the scene individually and not seeing how that scene is in a larger pattern. Part of the Architect thing is it at the end of a long two hour movie, and how he gives an answer but it is not the answer Neo wants (and Neo figured this out faster than the others), much like how all the monologues by antagonists and more neutral characters are not the answer Neo wants. The Matrix series “well this movie is about Kung Fu, intended for Philosophy Majors”. (This is a riff on a Patrick H Willems t-shirt about Star Wars https://store.nebula.app/products/pa...izards-t-shirt )

By ending all the monologues with the most condescending one, one with no charisma only with contempt it teaches Neo to stop looking for answers in the outside world. To now do action and to look for internal answers. More Kung fun and less enlightened. It is like that famous monk Linji Yixuan quote which I will not say for I am not sure how this forum would view Buddhism on the philosophy vs religion scale. (You can Google it)

The architect was merely there to close one door / path to give Neo the freedom to find his own path / way. No more oracles, no more architects, just a Kung Fu Hero tired of false prophecies and bad faith beliefs trying his best to save Zion, his people he has adopted.

The audience is far ahead of the characters at this point. Watching a character struggle to figure out the obvious conclusion that we already know, and that they should as well, is inherently boring. We know that the machines are the adversary, and that it's all another layer of control. That's been obvious for a couple of films now. We don't need to be convinced, at the finale of a trilogy, that Neo should fight against this.

And neither should Neo. He made that decision about twenty minutes into the first film.

The Architect is no different than Ozymandias from Watchmen which I quoted earlier. He is a narcissist obsessed with his own creation / reflection. He may be “god-like” but he has killed thousands / perhaps far more to achieve his new world. That is a pejorative of a God “to see his creation move” whether it is Ozymandias, or The Architect, or He Who Remains from Loki.

Yes, they are the same sort of character, but any trope can be done well or badly. Just because something fits an archetype doesn't make it, yknow, good entertainment.

By making the KFC man, the Architect condescending and rude it taught us the viewers to stop listen to charismatic affect of the Narcissists like Smith and The Merovingian. We listened to the words which were true and we found them disappointing, philosophy is not always for enlightened and mystical experiences sometimes it is there to instill the reality principle. It taught us to act and save Trinity, or to be like Trinity and just threaten to shoot the French Man in his nightclub. To act not just to think or to feel.

That's...not really teaching the viewers anything. The viewers already do not side with Smith or the Merovingian. Those guys are pretty clearly jerks, and the audience has long since accepted that Neo should oppose them...and Neo had no difficulty with this either. Nor does the audience ever want Neo not to save Trinity. We have no reason to root against her, and neither does Neo.

These "lessons" are unnecessary.

To me what made the movie suck was neo going from chosen one to god in between the first and second film where they had to literally teleport him to the Himalayas just so we could have a fight scene that wasnt boring.

That was certainly a challenge they built for themselves. I believe a story about ultra powerful characters can still be interesting...but it does remove a great many options. Once normal agents are no longer even a threat to Neo, well...you need to take a different angle. Now, I think to some extent, the in-Matrix obstacles were interesting. Adversaries he can no longer kill, an adversary that had fought previous iterations of him...the Agent Smith multiplying plot line, those were all interesting to some degree.

However, it also resulted in a lot more of the conflict happening outside of the Matrix than in the first film. And, ultimately, in Zion, Neo is just one more guy. So, a lot of those scenes ended up being pretty light on conflict, with only HumanSmith to give us any sort of real adversary for Neo....and he honestly isn't around a lot.

[Traab]

What I think would have made for an interesting second film, is both neo and the matrix itself evolving. The computers are upgrading their programming, trying to come up with counters to neo and his abilities. As an example of some technobabble, better firewalls on their agents to avoid neo exploding them, preprogrammed routines to further boost response time, think iron man versus captain america where tony programmed a counter fight strategy that ran automatically. Things like that. Meanwhile neo has to learn how to keep pushing his limits further and creating new applications of his "reality" warping abilities to counter the agents. All these upgrades could even be a rational excuse for the smith program to return and get out of control. The computers know there is a psychological effect to humans and seeing the face of the agent who nearly killed him back from "the dead" could shake his response a bit. But they gave him too much power in the matrix and lost control, causing the virus like takeover effect that spiraled into a near total shutdown of the matrix in movie 3. They could include discussions about what makes a person a human, and debate on what neo is if he is capable of so much more than what "normal" people can do. Im sure something along those lines could have worked to continue the allegory they had going on from the first film and felt natural rather than forced. Speaking of which, was there ever an explanation for what made neo able to do so much in the matrix? I know the architect talked about "The One" being the method the matrix used to do yadda yadda, but I dont remember if they ever said how he was able to do stuff beyond what normal people could pull.

[Clertar]

To me the biggest disappointment of Matrix Reloaded, bigger even than the lame human world on Earth or the crappy excuse to bring Agent Smith back, was how they nerfed Neo as The One. If The Matrix got a sequel it had to show The One as completely transcending the artificial world of the Matrix, not as a dude that had superpowers.

[Aedilred]

*raises hand*

My question to you is, when was the last time you watched the entire scene, or better, the entire movie?

About two months ago.

[Vahnavoi]

Okay. Then I can at least take your dislike of it seriously, even if I don't dislike it myself.

[Dragonus45]

In theory the Architect scene should be great, but then again in theory the words "Save Martha" are a clever way to force a character to confront the reality of the humanity of his opponent and and the darkness in his own soul while also referencing a funny bit of comics lore... In theory. Execution is other end of that stick, the much larger portion of it for certain.

[DigoDragon]

In theory the Architect scene should be great,

Looking back at it, I think the scenes leading up to it didn't help me enjoy the Architect's scene. The planning of the crew to get Neo into the Architect's room should have felt like an interesting heist-like mission, but there's a lot of narration over it by Morpheus and the scene felt heavily cut/shortened, so I just felt low energy being talked to going into the Architect's room. Which was just more talking. XD

So yeah, execution was bad here.

[Vahnavoi]

It's worth noting that some of the structural issues with Reloaded and Revolutions are due to some ambituous attempts to make Matrix into a true multimedia franchise.

Like, we talk of the Matrix movies as a trilogy, but that's false. If the movies were a trilogy, Animatrix would be the actual second part and Reloaded and Revolutions are just halves of the third part. Then there's the videogame Enter the Matrix, which tells a story parallel to Reloaded and explains some of the characters and events in more depth.

Obviously not everyone who watched Reloaded and Revolutions watched Animatrix or player Enter the Matrix, so that makes a mess out of some of the interconnected parts.

[Saintheart]

The architect was merely there to close one door / path to give Neo the freedom to find his own path / way. No more oracles, no more architects, just a Kung Fu Hero tired of false prophecies and bad faith beliefs trying his best to save Zion, his people he has adopted.

—————

The Architect is no different than Ozymandias from Watchmen which I quoted earlier. He is a narcissist obsessed with his own creation / reflection. He may be “god-like” but he has killed thousands / perhaps far more to achieve his new world. That is a pejorative of a God “to see his creation move” whether it is Ozymandias, or The Architect, or He Who Remains from Loki.

What was that Roman historian quote about Caesars again (other Narcissists)

By making the KFC man, the Architect condescending and rude it taught us the viewers to stop listen to charismatic affect of the Narcissists like Smith and The Merovingian. We listened to the words which were true and we found them disappointing, philosophy is not always for enlightened and mystical experiences sometimes it is there to instill the reality principle. It taught us to act and save Trinity, or to be like Trinity and just threaten to shoot the French Man in his nightclub. To act not just to think or to feel.

That's an interesting take on the scene. But my problem with it is that the Architect quite literally presents Neo with no substantive choice, and making matters worse is that Neo chooses selfishness. Most conventional plots have the hero find a third path forward, but insofar as that happens, it happens in Revolutions, not in Reloaded. In Reloaded Neo chooses one of the two options presented. The Architect presents Neo with two doors: one leading back to the Source and the salvation of his species, the other leading to the Matrix to save Trinity and thus assuring the outright extinction of humanity. The only reason we don't find it predictable is because Neo flat out chooses to extinguish humanity rather than accept Trinity, like all human beings, is going to die ... if not today, then at some future date, and there's absolutely nothing Neo can do to prevent that fundamental truth. (This also ties into my model of the series as being about Neo's narcissism, but we'll leave that to one side.)

The Architect pretty much declares that Neo's in the same position as all the Ones before him, and the five previous iterations always chose the destruction of Zion for the sake of preserving humanity's existence. Neo, apparently unlike all the other Ones before him, has more of a thing for chicks who look like Carrie Anne Moss than his predecessors. And Neo doesn't even seek the refuge of the greater good to justify his choice, he just goes 'Nah,' and knowingly condemns the entirety of humanity to extinction, right then, right there, and no, he has zero plan for saving anybody, and to top it all off outright says he loves Trinity too damn much even to let her die in the Matrix. Neo is completely responding to feelings, the Architect outright commentates his chemical response to Trinity being in peril. Even now, after Revolutions papered over the issue by just going whole hog with the Messianic metaphor again, that scene leaves a bad taste in my mouth - it leaves the impression that Neo quite literally is more prepared to let the entire human race go out for the sake of one person that he, and no one else, has an emotional attachment to. Neo wasn't interested in saving Zion or his people, he knowingly consigned them to extinction, along with the rest of the human race.

I don't necessarily see the Architect as a narcissist. That requires a human biology and human-ish upbringing, which doesn't seem to have been the path the Machines went on when they started creating their own AI. But then we start killing catgirls if we look too deep into how the hell machines which gained AI and which can therefore advance or shift their intellectual advance/"evolution" free of biological constraints somehow are still acting a lot like humans.

[DigoDragon]

But then we start killing catgirls if we look too deep into how the hell machines which gained AI and which can therefore advance or shift their intellectual advance/"evolution" free of biological constraints somehow are still acting a lot like humans.

Apples don't fall far from the tree. We made them to think like we do, so breaking free from our intellectual level is going to be very difficult.

[warty goblin]

I think Neo's choice to save Trinity instead of humanity at least hints at the Architect using morality as another form of control. If the system is immoral, but has removed all moral forms of resistance, the only remaining forms of resistance are immoral. Thus saving Trinity is the only choice that rejects the Matrix.

It also demonstrates a flaw in the Architect's thinking. The One is the remainder of an unbalanced sum of human choices, a human embodiement of free will, in effect. The choice of save Trinity or save humanity is supposed to solve this problem by presenting a choice with only one possible conclusion, but by his own statement the Architect cannot account for human choice. In other words the One by his very nature won't always chose the "correct" option.

Personally I find this a lot more engaging than the usual "hero finds a third way" solution. In part because it's different, but also because it requires more thought to understand than just like, discovering yourself and punching extra hard.

[Ramza00]

That's an interesting take on the scene. But my problem with it is that the Architect quite literally presents Neo with no substantive choice, and making matters worse is that Neo chooses selfishness. Most conventional plots have the hero find a third path forward, but insofar as that happens, it happens in Revolutions, not in Reloaded. In Reloaded Neo chooses one of the two options presented. The Architect presents Neo with two doors: one leading back to the Source and the salvation of his species, the other leading to the Matrix to save Trinity and thus assuring the outright extinction of humanity. The only reason we don't find it predictable is because Neo flat out chooses to extinguish humanity rather than accept Trinity, like all human beings, is going to die ... if not today, then at some future date, and there's absolutely nothing Neo can do to prevent that fundamental truth. (This also ties into my model of the series as being about Neo's narcissism, but we'll leave that to one side.)

The Architect pretty much declares that Neo's in the same position as all the Ones before him, and the five previous iterations always chose the destruction of Zion for the sake of preserving humanity's existence. Neo, apparently unlike all the other Ones before him, has more of a thing for chicks who look like Carrie Anne Moss than his predecessors. And Neo doesn't even seek the refuge of the greater good to justify his choice, he just goes 'Nah,' and knowingly condemns the entirety of humanity to extinction, right then, right there, and no, he has zero plan for saving anybody, and to top it all off outright says he loves Trinity too damn much even to let her die in the Matrix. Neo is completely responding to feelings, the Architect outright commentates his chemical response to Trinity being in peril. Even now, after Revolutions papered over the issue by just going whole hog with the Messianic metaphor again, that scene leaves a bad taste in my mouth - it leaves the impression that Neo quite literally is more prepared to let the entire human race go out for the sake of one person that he, and no one else, has an emotional attachment to. Neo wasn't interested in saving Zion or his people, he knowingly consigned them to extinction, along with the rest of the human race.

I don't necessarily see the Architect as a narcissist. That requires a human biology and human-ish upbringing, which doesn't seem to have been the path the Machines went on when they started creating their own AI. But then we start killing catgirls if we look too deep into how the hell machines which gained AI and which can therefore advance or shift their intellectual advance/"evolution" free of biological constraints somehow are still acting a lot like humans.

Agrees with all that. But let me put it in a different direction.

The Architect is a narcissist with how many people commonly use that word, but of course with some definitions he would not qualify, for language is a social thing and contextual thing, and words do not have specific precise meanings. Much like Neo himself, he is a collection of electricity and chemistry between nerve cells. Yet he is also his body beyond his nerve cells, and he is also his life experiences, and his perceptions (sense information taken in from the outside world), his cognition to process all these contradictions, etc. Neo also is an identity and a narrative, a story besides "all those totalities" I said before. Neo is Mr. (thomas) Anderson, but he choose his own name for he finds a greater harmony with that name than those other descriptions and proscriptions. (also other names such as The One, Not The One, and so on.)

The architect is much the same way, he is a collective of many things, many inputs, and he can't see outside his cognition not in a literal sense, he can admit other people can have good insights but he also considers these other people irrational. Thus the Father and Mother of the Matrix throw shade and barbs at each other when talking to Neo.

Oracle: *rolls eyes* Please… You and I may not be able to see beyond our own choices, but that man can’t see past any choices.
Neo: Why not?
Oracle: 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.
Neo: What’s your purpose?
Oracle: To unbalance it.

Oracle: To unbalance it.
Neo: Why? What do you want?
Oracle: I want the same thing you want, Neo. And I am willing to go as far as you are to get it.
Neo: The end of the war. *Oracle nods* Is it going to end?
Oracle: One way, or another.
Neo: Can Zion be saved?
Oracle: I’m sorry, I don’t have the answer to that question, but if there’s an answer, there’s only one place you’re going to find it.
Neo: Where?
Oracle: You know where. And if you can’t find the answer, then I’m afraid there may be no tomorow for any of us.
Neo: What does that mean?
Oracle: Everything that has a beginning has an end. I see the end coming. I see the darkness spreading. I see death. And you are all that stands in his way.

The Oracle: We’re all here to do what we’re all here to do. I’m interested in one thing, Neo, the future. And believe me, I know – the only way to get there is together.

There is far more quotes, but Tomorrow, the Future, and similar words keep popping up by authorial design (repetition does stuff to the human brain), hell the first words of Matrix Reloaded is a Guard wishing another Guard "see you tomorrow" followed by Trinity saying "I'm in"

The Oracle is willing to tolerate change, ambiguity, etc and The Architect is not willing to accept it. Yet The Architect understands he can't have his way for all the previous times they did it his way the Matrix broke. And even at the end of the 3rd movie The Architect does not accept all this irrationality, yet he will allow it for the results speak for themselves. The Oracle can't see the future per the 3rd movie, she has limits in her cognition (can't see the result of choices beyond one's understanding) and thus part of the future is black / shadow / obscura to her, and she is at peace with that.

-----

Part of the 3 movies, and the Animatrix and other spin off themes is Choices and False Choices. Likewise what part of life / history is not a choice and the reality principle, and the ambiguity between these things. The Architect represents everything Neo is not (and that is okay), obviously one choice feels more certain but if all the previous the Ones made the same choice and the system still keeps on destabilizing then was it the right choice? What type of risks will someone accept for tomorrow, isn't that personal? And if the system can't accept choices at all for they are risky this too can destabilize the system.

A little narcissism can be a good thing, likewise too much, there must be a middle way between two extremes. If "excellence" / virtue as defined as the system existing tomorrow, then excellence is the sum of all choices that is between excess and deficiency that allows this tomorrow, and the choices made today that are too much in the direction of deficiency and excess are two different ways the system destabilizes. The path of the one has many names in philosophy (Aristotle's The Golden Mean) and religion (not naming those names due to rules about Religion on this board. You can google them for wikipedia will connect the two.) In fact the Oracle of Delphi had a maximin (rule), "nothing in excess" that is one of the influences on Aristotle and his teachers.

(If it was not obvious, in Matrix Reloaded we are given two choices return to the source or not return to the source. Neo in the 3rd movie picks a 3rd option Return to the Source at the time of his own choosing and then creates a new bargain with Dormammu ... wait that is wrong movie franchise ... Neo proposes a new bargain to the Machine Head composed of CGI whose name is Deus Ex Machina.)

[Traab]

I dont think the oracle tolerates change and the rest. Her purpose (I almost went into smiths speech at that point, be glad i didnt) seems to be specifically to CAUSE this chaos and change and ambiguity. Which has an interesting implication. A lot of this movie series suggests multiple layers to control by the machines. The illusion of the matrix itself is only the first layer, apparently even the resistance breaking free and setting up zion is all a part of the overall plan by the machines, so on and so forth. Maybe the oracle is also a part of that great plan. Her job is to give these people hope by telling them that its possible to win, that they have a choice, all the while leading them to the choices that end up with The One in the architects room where they are told to reset the system or whatever. After all, she IS a program in the matrix.

I did like the theory the second movie triggered when neo shut down the sentinel in the real world. Zion isnt real. They are "escaping" into another layer of the matrix. One where they can feel like they are fighting against the system to protect the lives they have taken back for themselves, because they cant or wont accept the normal life of the matrix. They never leave those tubes. They never break free. Its just how the robots pacify the people whose minds rebel against the program.

[Millstone85]

Neo wasn't interested in saving Zion or his people, he knowingly consigned them to extinction, along with the rest of the human race.

Neo rejected that part of the knowledge the Architect imparted on him, calling it "bull****". In turn, the Architect described Neo's reactions as "denial" and "hope", showing contempt toward both.

The sequel took the side of hope, starting with the Oracle mocking the Architect's ability to predict anything. And then Neo saved both the Matrix and Zion.

And yes, my knee-jerk response to this was and still is: Damn those trolley-cheating protagonists! Heck, Neo's victory was made possible by something literally called the Deux Ex Machina.

That requires a human biology and human-ish upbringing, which doesn't seem to have been the path the Machines went on when they started creating their own AI.

Unless the Wachowskis never truly let go of the original pitch with the Matrix providing processing power. In which case the path the Machines went on was all about human thinking.

I did like the theory the second movie triggered when neo shut down the sentinel in the real world. Zion isnt real. They are "escaping" into another layer of the matrix.

And I still find that theory, in one word, boring.

We had just been told how Zion was built on a lie to serve as another level of control, all this in a way that did not require the post-apocalyptic Earth to be literally part of the Matrix. Excessive verbiage aside, I thought that was brilliant.

But nooo, the fans went all "Ah, they must still be plugged in".

[Traab]

Neo rejected that part of the knowledge the Architect imparted on him, calling it "bull****". In turn, the Architect described Neo's reactions as "denial" and "hope", showing contempt toward both.

The sequel took the side of hope, starting with the Oracle mocking the Architect's ability to predict anything. And then Neo saved both the Matrix and Zion.

And yes, my knee-jerk response to this was and still is: Damn those trolley-cheating protagonists! Heck, Neo's victory was made possible by something literally called the Deux Ex Machina.

Unless the Wachowskis never truly let go of the original pitch with the Matrix providing processing power. In which case the path the Machines went on was all about human thinking.

And I still find that theory, in one word, boring.

We had just been told how Zion was built on a lie to serve as another level of control, all this in a way that did not require the post-apocalyptic Earth to be literally part of the Matrix. Excessive verbiage aside, I thought that was brilliant.

But nooo, the fans went all "Ah, they must still be plugged in".

I mean, its a better explanation than "Man who can manipulate the matrix, can also take control of and blow up robots in the real world that he should have no way of interacting with outside of getting stabbed because....?" It brought back some of early morpheus questions like, "What is real? Do you think thats air you are breathing?" And so on. Even if it turned out to be a red herring it made for an interesting question about exactly what is real and what isnt. It made rational sense that zion would be another level of control built by the architect or whoever in direct response to the existence of people who couldnt accept the matrix as "real" Play into their doubts, show them a world where they were right. Give them an enemy to fight and they will gladly accept this as "the truth" And stop causing whatever issues subconsciously rejecting the program causes. Or whatever is happening exactly. That is an incredibly logical solution to the problem the architect was rambling on about. Or at least a patch for the problem.

[Ramza00]

I mean, its a better explanation than "Man who can manipulate the matrix, can also take control of and blow up robots in the real world that he should have no way of interacting with outside of getting stabbed because....?" It brought back some of early morpheus questions like, "What is real? Do you think thats air you are breathing?" And so on. Even if it turned out to be a red herring it made for an interesting question about exactly what is real and what isnt. It made rational sense that zion would be another level of control built by the architect or whoever in direct response to the existence of people who couldnt accept the matrix as "real" Play into their doubts, show them a world where they were right. Give them an enemy to fight and they will gladly accept this as "the truth" And stop causing whatever issues subconsciously rejecting the program causes. Or whatever is happening exactly. That is an incredibly logical solution to the problem the architect was rambling on about. Or at least a patch for the problem.

I get this, but some of that speech is referencing Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulations (the book where Neo keeps the drugs at the start of Movie 1), plus another book Selected Writings which Chapter 7 is also called Simulacra and Simulations as a 20ish page essay. That is where the “desert of the real” reference comes from, and the Wachowskis were trying to get Baudrillard to contribute / help write the script for Part 2 and 3.

In sum it is a reference, that if you did not know all of what is referencing it would be natural for your mind to take it in a different direction than what it was meaning. You would naturally fool yourself! This was intentional for that same chapter is dealing with the concept of Hyperreality and how the map is no longer the territory and vice versa and you can be like Alice in Wonderland, lost. One of the concepts of hyperreality is when you can no longer tell the original from one of the derivatives. Like is X fact true of Alexander Hamilton, or was it a creation of a biography, or perhaps a musical, and so on. Or the concept of memes where you lost track of what preceded what in how a meme changes over time and space.

—————

Another layer of control where Zion is not real but is an illusion is not a false theory with only movie 1 and 2. It matched the evidence. Yet it was not that story being told but a different one.

[Millstone85]

I mean, its a better explanation than "Man who can manipulate the matrix, can also take control of and blow up robots in the real world that he should have no way of interacting with outside of getting stabbed because....?"

Because, following his encounter with the Architect, he has begun to become part of the machine hive mind.

After the raining green code of the Matrix, Neo's new powers are tied to the fractal yellow code that sentinels and other machines (and one AI-infected human) use to think. A point is made that the eye-scorched Neo is actually blind when none are present. All that darkness, representing the absence of code, ought to shut down the theory that the real world is another simulation, at least until we are reintroduced to Zion in some blossoming orange code that Neo could not see before.

And yes, that implies Neo has gone wireless. Chalk it up to us not knowing everything about his implants.

[Bohandas]

If they were going to do another Matrix I think they should have skipped ahead a bit and made Goliath

What is the point of this?

The point is Keanu Reeves trying to make a comeback, as far as I can tell (see also Bill & Ted 3 and the cameo appearance in Spongebob 3)