NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got done watching The Matrix Trilogy. I loved it. I loved it then, and I love it still. Am I the wacko here?

It's not without it's flaws. For instance:

Matrix Reloaded plodded a little in the middle. But just a little.

Lawrence Fishburn apparently attended classes at the William Shatner Academy of Overacting. :p

I think Neo displayed a poor grasp of the extent of his powers and a lack of creativity in their use.

But in general, I thought they were excellent movies with incredible special effects. I love the way they broadened the Matrix mythos to leave so many questions for my imagination to wonder about. Who is the Merovingian? What exactly is Seraph? What sort of balance will have to be struck between Zion and the Matrix?

The end was almost exactly what I predicted it would be after The Matrix. I don't understand how people were surprised and displeased with it; What exactly were you expecting?

I think people have been overly harsh and critical of the movies. What do you think? Am I the wacko here?

Ah, I don't know. Personally, I thought the first one was very good & I really loved the ideas behind it, but the second one was just boring and stupid. I mean yeah, the "multiple Smiths" camera trickery bit was impressive, but it was all pretty hollow and uncompelling by then. And the "rave in the cave" scene, as I like to call it, was beyond ridiculous.
I didn't even bother to watch the third one.

The longwinded dialogue in the second movie was a killer.
Even a couple of the fight scenes between Neo and Smith were too long.
Not all of them, but at least two.

I forget wich character it was, but he was the old guy in the white suit, the guy who kept saying "Cause and effect".
He basically says that Zion was an illusion, and had been destroyed many times over, and would be destroyed again, and that the "real" world that Neo and Co inhabit, is merely another reality created by the matrix.

Thereby making the whole trilogy pointless.

Keanu Reeves acting sucks so bad, its not funny.
Even Larry Fishburn, as you said, was bad.

The first film was truly excellent as far as I'm concerned. Unlike most, I thought the two sequels were pretty good too; they didn't really have the intellectual loftiness I saw in the first, but I thought they were pretty good entertainment nonetheless. I think some people must have thought they were so shit in part because they were comparing them to the first one, which is understandable (inevitable, probably). Still, I didn't think such bad press as they received was entirely justified.

compared to the first movie the rest are completely different films

the original was about an interesting conspiracy the rest were about NEO being some sort of God, They got rid of the slow motion (the best thing about the first film) and they were all bad because they had no comedy or porn (well apart from the crappy scene in the second film which wouldn‘t arouse a librarian)

The second two films did lack soemthing, maybe it was ebcause by the time they arrived we were all used to the effects while the first was fresh?
My personal bug bear was not enough gun fights, the lobby and roof tops encounters are probabaly the best bits of the first film and they didn't really have anything like them later on, yeah the Neo/Smith fights were OK but they did get annoying.

Oh is just me or did anyone else laugh when neo discovered that Trinity had been speared in the last film...

I thoroughly enjoyed all three. I'm just not the kind of person that dissects movies and rags on them so I can pretty much watch anything and like it for what it is. Never really got what was supposed to be so bad about the last two.

I just got done watching The Matrix Trilogy. I loved it. I loved it then, and I love it still. Am I the wacko here?

It's not without it's flaws. For instance:

Matrix Reloaded plodded a little in the middle. But just a little.

Lawrence Fishburn apparently attended classes at the William Shatner Academy of Overacting. :p

I think Neo displayed a poor grasp of the extent of his powers and a lack of creativity in their use.

But in general, I thought they were excellent movies with incredible special effects. I love the way they broadened the Matrix mythos to leave so many questions for my imagination to wonder about. Who is the Merovingian? What exactly is Seraph? What sort of balance will have to be struck between Zion and the Matrix?

The end was almost exactly what I predicted it would be after The Matrix. I don't understand how people were surprised and displeased with it; What exactly were you expecting?

I think people have been overly harsh and critical of the movies. What do you think? Am I the wacko here?


In my opinion, the first was excellent, the second left a lot to be desired, and the third, well, apart from the big battle scene, the less said about that, the better...

I love the trilogy. I do think the first was best as an overall film, but some of the scenes in the other two were fantastic.

I really enjoyed the first, fell asleep during the second and didn't even bother to watch the third.

The instant Morpheus said "Welcome to the desert of the real", I wanted to punch him in the neck.

The acting stank like day old cheese, and the plot didn't explore all of its wonderful possibilities, but it was a good romp through special effects and some very colorful characters.

I'm a little dissappointed they didn't fully explore Seraph as the previous Neo aspect.

The problem was that, the third movie did not conclude the trilogy properly... It went part of the way (and a fourth movie might be able to do so, though I wouldn't necessarily wish it upon anyone that there be one) but it missed the conclusion tha the endof the second movie all but sent you an email about...


Movies 1 and 2 tell us that:
The reality that we see is illusion,
The reaity that we see is actually 'green cascading' matrix code, a better world than the real Earth of Xion (but, remember, they found people couldn't handle a perfect world, so it isn't, and (because it isn't) most people don't doubt it, but the (previously plugged-in) Xionites rejected it still.
Because it isn't reality, you can affect things by doing a bit of in-situ code-jiggling of yourself or your surroundings, if gifted enough (or having outside help).
The Agents are the internal mechanisms that (normally) keep things running 'the way they should'.

So, we have a whole lot of people in Xion who don't like it, but at least know know it is real. Blitz spirit and the like keeps them going, fight for humanity, going into the matrix (as uber/super-people, according to inate skill and the like), but knowing that the things they can do are tricked-up simulation.


End of second movie (and spoilers should not be nbecessary if you're reading this thread, should they?) we see Neo, in reality (world of real Earth and Xion) doing something patently impossible... This leads to only one conclusion...


...


...


The world of Xion is not reality either.


Xion is not fully-founded physical reality , either
Xion is plainly seen by 'blinded' Neo as a 'firey' matrix code, who knows what relationship to the real world, but most people don't doubt it because they think thy are escaped/free.
Because it isn't reality, Neo can affect things by doing a bit of apparently mysstic stuff.
The Machines might be the internal mechanisms that (normally) shepherd things properly.

There is at least one level further out. This is further telegraphed by the fact that Neo, in the 'real' Xion, is handed a spoon. Was that a reminder that, within the Matrix "There is no spoon" and he can do anything? Or was it an indication that "There is still no spoon"?


There are several possibilities for the next level out. It could be a further unreality (maybe one even 'worse' to catch those who found out that Xion was false) but that way lie recursion, so let us avoid that question for the time being and drill out to the Ultimate reality. The following are the possible realities that I expected: Neo is playing a game. Either single-player or multiplayer, a bit like the Better-Than-Life game (Red Dwarf reference...) and maybe Neo is doing well.
It's a brain-stimulation system for people within pod, in induced comas, who are survivors of some starship tragedy on an uninhabitable world, who are being sustained physically and mentally while rescue comes.
It's a penal system. Either only Neo (the suitably perverse might actually exchange Neo for Smith, of course!) or perhaps the whole/majority of humans encountered are prisoners, being re-educated, and rebels are 'dumped' out into more punishing levels (wossisname who sells the team out to Smith in the first is earning good behaviour by conorming, and can be made to forget the unreality). Who knows if there's parole/release available, it may just be comsidered more humane (to the well-behaved ones).
Neo is an artificial construct himself. An experiment in artificial intelligence that needs to be progressively educated in increasingly 'realistic' artificial worlds to some purpose or other (of which I have many answers, too many to answer, some are reflected in the above questions, e.g. game-playing, operation of automated systems, etc).
There are Machines all the way out. ;)

I've had to cut that list short, I'm waffling. You get the idea.

The first one was brilliant; if they'd left it at that it would have gone down as one of the great sci-fi films.

As it stands, it can't help but be tainted by the sheer awfulness of the sequels, especially as they were directed by the same people. (unlike say, the Jaws sequels)

I always find the notion that the Matrix was using people as a power source a bit risible: any kind of animal is incredibly inefficient at gathering and coverting energy. They should have used a different stupid plot device to justify that one.

I loved the Matrix trilogy, but yes, the sequels lacked something. In particular, the explanation for Neo's powers in the third really was a disapointment.

I just want to know what kind of blackmail they had to use to get respected academic Dr. Cornell West to appear in those films.

The problem was that, the third movie did not conclude the trilogy properly... It went part of the way (and a fourth movie might be able to do so, though I wouldn't necessarily wish it upon anyone that there be one) but it missed the conclusion tha the endof the second movie all but sent you an email about...


Movies 1 and 2 tell us that:
The reality that we see is illusion,
The reaity that we see is actually 'green cascading' matrix code, a better world than the real Earth of Xion (but, remember, they found people couldn't handle a perfect world, so it isn't, and (because it isn't) most people don't doubt it, but the (previously plugged-in) Xionites rejected it still.
Because it isn't reality, you can affect things by doing a bit of in-situ code-jiggling of yourself or your surroundings, if gifted enough (or having outside help).
The Agents are the internal mechanisms that (normally) keep things running 'the way they should'.

So, we have a whole lot of people in Xion who don't like it, but at least know know it is real. Blitz spirit and the like keeps them going, fight for humanity, going into the matrix (as uber/super-people, according to inate skill and the like), but knowing that the things they can do are tricked-up simulation.


End of second movie (and spoilers should not be nbecessary if you're reading this thread, should they?) we see Neo, in reality (world of real Earth and Xion) doing something patently impossible... This leads to only one conclusion...


...


...


The world of Xion is not reality either.


Xion is not fully-founded physical reality , either
Xion is plainly seen by 'blinded' Neo as a 'firey' matrix code, who knows what relationship to the real world, but most people don't doubt it because they think thy are escaped/free.
Because it isn't reality, Neo can affect things by doing a bit of apparently mysstic stuff.
The Machines might be the internal mechanisms that (normally) shepherd things properly.

There is at least one level further out. This is further telegraphed by the fact that Neo, in the 'real' Xion, is handed a spoon. Was that a reminder that, within the Matrix "There is no spoon" and he can do anything? Or was it an indication that "There is still no spoon"?


There are several possibilities for the next level out. It could be a further unreality (maybe one even 'worse' to catch those who found out that Xion was false) but that way lie recursion, so let us avoid that question for the time being and drill out to the Ultimate reality. The following are the possible realities that I expected: Neo is playing a game. Either single-player or multiplayer, a bit like the Better-Than-Life game (Red Dwarf reference...) and maybe Neo is doing well.
It's a brain-stimulation system for people within pod, in induced comas, who are survivors of some starship tragedy on an uninhabitable world, who are being sustained physically and mentally while rescue comes.
It's a penal system. Either only Neo (the suitably perverse might actually exchange Neo for Smith, of course!) or perhaps the whole/majority of humans encountered are prisoners, being re-educated, and rebels are 'dumped' out into more punishing levels (wossisname who sells the team out to Smith in the first is earning good behaviour by conorming, and can be made to forget the unreality). Who knows if there's parole/release available, it may just be comsidered more humane (to the well-behaved ones).
Neo is an artificial construct himself. An experiment in artificial intelligence that needs to be progressively educated in increasingly 'realistic' artificial worlds to some purpose or other (of which I have many answers, too many to answer, some are reflected in the above questions, e.g. game-playing, operation of automated systems, etc).
There are Machines all the way out. ;)

I've had to cut that list short, I'm waffling. You get the idea.

Nice bit postulating there, if only it were true...
Now of the course the obvious question is: Where does the Animatrix fit in with all that? i actually enjoyed the Animatrix, yes some of the animation was really annoying and some of it a bit random (robots wanting to have sex with humans, but i geuss that goes with anime territory) but on thw whole fairly good if incredibly depressing (was anyone else freaked out by "the second reneisnce part 2"?)

I've had to cut that list short, I'm waffling. You get the idea.

do tell us you have sparked my interest and I can't be bothered to think any theories up myself

In particular, the explanation for Neo's powers in the third really was a disapointment.

Neo only had powers in the Matrix..... think about it....

I liked The Matrix, I thought it was very original (as original as the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" can be at this point.) But I noticed something right away-
Smith is the personification of a computer virus. Neo is anti-spyware. Morpheus is the net admin. EDIT: Actually I think the personification of software programs fits better.
I'm not saying that this is the whole underpinning of the plot but I watched the movies with that mindset and it was more interesting (too many fight LOOONG fight scenes and car chases.)

That whole fight scene in the courtyard between Neo and the Smiths was tedious and it didn't advance the plot much. The last 2 were more style than substance. Too much emoting from the cast except for Neo's girlfriend who was basically a bondage shop mannequin.

Nice bit postulating there, if only it were true...Maybe.... just maybe... it is!
*does wobbly-wobbly effect with hands and vocalises the Twilight Zone theme-tune* ;)

Now of the course the obvious question is: Where does the Animatrix fit in with all that? i actually enjoyed the Animatrix, yes some of the animation was really annoying and some of it a bit random (robots wanting to have sex with humans, but i geuss that goes with anime territory) but on thw whole fairly good if incredibly depressing (was anyone else freaked out by "the second reneisnce part 2"?)In-game backstory, obviously..!


Basically, by the Laws Of Movies, certain things are significant... If certain things are shown in flims they Mean something. Very bad films (w.r.t. signficant information, that is) telegraph such things almost instantly (I'm sure you've experienced this), very good ones only let you click at the denouement, but you might still get an incling (and if you do, and the rest of the movie is good, it's not a bad thing).

It's only usually some of the more perverse directors (such as Tarantino, the film buff that he is) who might insert stuff that's spurious to the story (but still in keeping) to catch out fellow cinephiles. And that's good.

In the Matrix, I was positive I had it tagged. At least the direction (not whereit would end up), and it left me anticipating which result it would be. And then they went and confounded me. And I'm perfectly sure it wasnt a cleverly-crafted diversion, it was much worse... It was a Deux Ex Machina without any consequence...

But, as I said, they could make a 4th film and continue the mythos to one of the many conclusions there could be, but I'd be dubious about their ability to realistically do so and would probably end up a bit critical of any that occured from now on if not justified by whole new developments in the catagory of FX-fests or some other attractive feature...

It's not without it's flaws. For instance:

The "oh Neo, you must be the one cause I love you scene" - where a kiss magically makes it better did ruin quite a large part of the first movie for me. Overall they were a fun watch with a tad too much nonsenical oseudo-philosophy babble. But hey - i enjoyed startrek too ;)

You forgot to mention the prologue - "terminator 3" - by the way. It fits really well.

The first movie was pretty good. It had some intelligent moments, some goofy shit, and it had fun. The last two took themselves too seriously, turned the goofy shit into "WTF were they thinking?" shit, and the intelligent moments took a nose dive off the deep end.

Conclusion: they were just bad movies. Buy the first one and forget about the other two (and the stupid animatrix; god what a waste of money)

1st movie: Almost nothing

2nd movie: Almost everything

3rd movie: see 2nd movie

I just got done watching The Matrix Trilogy. I loved it. I loved it then, and I love it still. Am I the wacko here?

It's not without it's flaws. For instance:

Matrix Reloaded plodded a little in the middle. But just a little.

Lawrence Fishburn apparently attended classes at the William Shatner Academy of Overacting. :p

I think Neo displayed a poor grasp of the extent of his powers and a lack of creativity in their use.

But in general, I thought they were excellent movies with incredible special effects. I love the way they broadened the Matrix mythos to leave so many questions for my imagination to wonder about. Who is the Merovingian? What exactly is Seraph? What sort of balance will have to be struck between Zion and the Matrix?

The end was almost exactly what I predicted it would be after The Matrix. I don't understand how people were surprised and displeased with it; What exactly were you expecting?

I think people have been overly harsh and critical of the movies. What do you think? Am I the wacko here?
I agree with your assessment. I loved it, and except for the plot points you mention, and the 40 minute car-chase scene, there was little to dislike about it. I remember walking out the theatre after the third show feeling very satisfied and happy with it.

Ah, I don't know. Personally, I thought the first one was very good & I really loved the ideas behind it, but the second one was just boring and stupid. I mean yeah, the "multiple Smiths" camera trickery bit was impressive, but it was all pretty hollow and uncompelling by then. And the "rave in the cave" scene, as I like to call it, was beyond ridiculous.
I didn't even bother to watch the third one.
I was a bit disturbed by the rave scene, also, but then I read an essay (http://wylfing.net/essays/matrix_reloaded.html#rave) that explained it quite well, in terms of the mythology presented, and it does it make sense in the context of the whole series.

I'm noticing people picking up on something lacking from the two sequels, something they can't quite put their fingers on. I felt much the same way. I found that while the strength of the first film lay in the characters questioning the suppositions we all live with and take for granted as our life, the trouble with the sequels lay in attempting to answer those questions.

Really, the sequels marred an otherwise brilliant first film. That world should not have been expanded upon.

I have to agree, the first was brilliant, the other two... Well, the third did do pretty well, I liked it.

But the second one... End of The Matrix we get the whole 'I'm going to show them what you don't want to see' bit. Neo is GOD here (Or root, but God, root, what is difference? ;) ). He managed to make Agent Smith go boom and scared the hell out of the other Agents.

Then the second movie rolls around and... the Matrix is still going? Neo's God-like powers are pretty much limited to flying around ala Superman, but even the Agents keep attacking him, and he still has problems fighting them.

Not to mention the idea of rouge programs. Yeah, programs made for one purpose have free will and can't be found. Uh-huh.

But I think what annoyed me the most about the second one is that it just dropped all the philosophical bits from the first that made me love the movie and turned it into yet another action movie with big explosions.

By the time I watched the third, I just didn't even expect a good movie so that may be why I enjoyed it a bit.

I just got done watching The Matrix Trilogy. I loved it. I loved it then, and I love it still. Am I the wacko here?

It's not without it's flaws. For instance:

Matrix Reloaded plodded a little in the middle. But just a little.

Lawrence Fishburn apparently attended classes at the William Shatner Academy of Overacting. :p

I think Neo displayed a poor grasp of the extent of his powers and a lack of creativity in their use.

But in general, I thought they were excellent movies with incredible special effects. I love the way they broadened the Matrix mythos to leave so many questions for my imagination to wonder about. Who is the Merovingian? What exactly is Seraph? What sort of balance will have to be struck between Zion and the Matrix?

The end was almost exactly what I predicted it would be after The Matrix. I don't understand how people were surprised and displeased with it; What exactly were you expecting?

I think people have been overly harsh and critical of the movies. What do you think? Am I the wacko here?


About seventy percent of it was stolen from "The Invisibles"...mainly the good bits.

About seventy percent of it was stolen from "The Invisibles"...mainly the good bits.
"The Invisibles" episode of the classic 60s 'Outer Limits' series? Or something else...?

"The Invisibles" episode of the classic 60s 'Outer Limits' series? Or something else...?

The 1990s comic book written by Grant Morrison - occasional steals from "The Doom Patrol" - 1980/early 90s comic book written by Grant Morrison - do you see the theme yet?.....

There is nothing wrong with the Matrix Trilogy.

A bunch of idiotic fucktards would rather parrot pretentious critics than form an opinion of their own.

I'm noticing people picking up on something lacking from the two sequels, something they can't quite put their fingers on. I felt much the same way. I found that while the strength of the first film lay in the characters questioning the suppositions we all live with and take for granted as our life, the trouble with the sequels lay in attempting to answer those questions.

Really, the sequels marred an otherwise brilliant first film. That world should not have been expanded upon.

That is exactly the problem. The explanations could not meet expectations.

The explanations would have had to have been of Biblical proportions and transcendental profundity, and they fell far short.

I think the earlier suggestion that there is still another level beyond what we saw would have been the way to go, with the implication that there are levels beyond that.

What else could satisfy?

There is nothing wrong with the Matrix Trilogy.

A bunch of idiotic fucktards would rather parrot pretentious critics than form an opinion of their own.

C'mon, there was everything wrong with the Matrix trilogy - the first film was better served by the trailer. the whole series parroted a mishmash of eastern and western philosophy in a rather pathetic new age slew, it featured both Keanu Reeves and the Mighty Laurence Fishburne at the bottom of their acting range, the Agent Smith multiple fight was disappointing and it ended with the heroic sacrifice of a semi-Jesus figure, and it existed in that sub-Blade Runner environment that every single sci-fi movie since 1984 has existed in.

The most imaginitive bits - the insect/computer hive mind feeding off humanity, the ingenue recruited to a cell of black leather trenchcoated bald anarchists, the death/graveyard of the real, the playing around with virtuality and reality. the hot women - were all lifted, as i said above, from Grant Morrisons "The Invisibles" - to the extent that they had trade paperbacks of the comic they were plagiarising open on set for the actors and crew to peruse.

My vote for the new millenniums biggest and most disappointing hype.

What was wrong with the Matrix Trilogy?

It was a Trilogy.

The problem was that, the third movie did not conclude the trilogy properly... It went part of the way (and a fourth movie might be able to do so, though I wouldn't necessarily wish it upon anyone that there be one) but it missed the conclusion tha the endof the second movie all but sent you an email about...

I've had to cut that list short, I'm waffling. You get the idea.
I think perhaps you forgot the obvious - Mr Anderson is insane.

I used to like the series very much, unless I realized the philosophy used was highly flawed.

The ending relied too much on canonical extrapolation of Abrahamic faiths, and a (literal) Deus Ex Machina to end the conflict.

If there was one character that had the most potential to be expanded; it is definitely Seraph.

There are some fine special effects; but special effects alone cannot carry a film.

What was wrong with the Matrix Trilogy?

It was a Trilogy.

Exactly, they should've just stopped with the first one.

Well, they were good for the eye candy, I'll grant them that. The fact that I don't remember much else from them is pretty telling, I think.

*grumbles*

I wish everybody would just quit using the word 'parrot' as a negative verb.

Nothing negative about my parrot. He's upbeat as Hell. Provided he gets his millet snacks and children's television programs first thing in the morning, that is.

NOTHING was bad about the original Matrix (I will throw down with anyone who says differently), and while the two successors had flaws, (unlike the perfect original) they were still good.

Seriously, what isn't there to like? Are you the type who likes lots of kickass action and special effects, but doesn't particularly want to think? Cool, hop on the train. Looking for a movie with really deep philosophy and logic, and layers of meaning it takes many viewings and much discussion to even begin to decipher? This is the movie for you too. There's even some humor, a bit of sex, and hot people in cool clothing - sometimes not much of it.

C'mon, there was everything wrong with the Matrix trilogy - the first film was better served by the trailer. the whole series parroted a mishmash of eastern and western philosophy in a rather pathetic new age slew, it featured both Keanu Reeves and the Mighty Laurence Fishburne at the bottom of their acting range[...]

Keanu Reeves has a top to his ladder?

the first film was about rebellion against the evil all encompassing state and rocked, the sequals were all about how the revolution could never really succeed and how the state ultimately had to be maintained and they sucked, betraying the revolution like the cyberspawn of old joes stalin.

Why do people always so aggressively frame movies and books in the context of their sociopolitical beliefs? Like the other day, when someone gave me back the copy of The Da Vince Code I lent him and said it was a "Democrat book"... OK, so it makes sense to think about connotations, and some movies demand putting it in personal political context - but that doesn't mean every piece of entertainment has to be filtered through a Cartesian theatre whose only actor is your preferred party or religion or economic system.

Just a little mostly-off-topic rant...

Why do people always so aggressively frame movies and books in the context of their sociopolitical beliefs? Like the other day, when someone gave me back the copy of The Da Vince Code I lent him and said it was a "Democrat book"... OK, so it makes sense to think about connotations, and some movies demand putting it in personal political context - but that doesn't mean every piece of entertainment has to be filtered through a Cartesian theatre whose only actor is your preferred party or religion or economic system.

Just a little mostly-off-topic rant...

neo was trotsky reborn until he was betrayed by the writers and reeves reactionary inability to act.

neo was trotsky reborn until he was betrayed by the writers and reeves reactionary inability to act.

Ahh, so I suppose that that makes the Merovingian a reborn czar-relative, considering his comments about fighting earlier iterations of the One...:D

I just got done watching The Matrix Trilogy. I loved it. I loved it then, and I love it still. Am I the wacko here?

It's not without it's flaws. For instance:

Matrix Reloaded plodded a little in the middle. But just a little.

Lawrence Fishburn apparently attended classes at the William Shatner Academy of Overacting. :p

I think Neo displayed a poor grasp of the extent of his powers and a lack of creativity in their use.

But in general, I thought they were excellent movies with incredible special effects. I love the way they broadened the Matrix mythos to leave so many questions for my imagination to wonder about. Who is the Merovingian? What exactly is Seraph? What sort of balance will have to be struck between Zion and the Matrix?

The end was almost exactly what I predicted it would be after The Matrix. I don't understand how people were surprised and displeased with it; What exactly were you expecting?

I think people have been overly harsh and critical of the movies. What do you think? Am I the wacko here?
IMO the biggest problem with the Matrix Trilogy was its evolution into a trilogy. The original was a fine action flick with a rather airtight ending. No real room for continuing if your protagonist has become essentially all-powerful. The only reason for the 2nd and 3rd movies was to make money.

Ahh, so I suppose that that makes the Merovingian a reborn czar-relative, considering his comments about fighting earlier iterations of the One...:D
he might have been kerensky i haven't quite worked that out

The problem was that, the third movie did not conclude the trilogy properly... It went part of the way (and a fourth movie might be able to do so, though I wouldn't necessarily wish it upon anyone that there be one) but it missed the conclusion tha the endof the second movie all but sent you an email about...


Movies 1 and 2 tell us that:
The reality that we see is illusion,
The reaity that we see is actually 'green cascading' matrix code, a better world than the real Earth of Xion (but, remember, they found people couldn't handle a perfect world, so it isn't, and (because it isn't) most people don't doubt it, but the (previously plugged-in) Xionites rejected it still.
Because it isn't reality, you can affect things by doing a bit of in-situ code-jiggling of yourself or your surroundings, if gifted enough (or having outside help).
The Agents are the internal mechanisms that (normally) keep things running 'the way they should'.

So, we have a whole lot of people in Xion who don't like it, but at least know know it is real. Blitz spirit and the like keeps them going, fight for humanity, going into the matrix (as uber/super-people, according to inate skill and the like), but knowing that the things they can do are tricked-up simulation.


End of second movie (and spoilers should not be nbecessary if you're reading this thread, should they?) we see Neo, in reality (world of real Earth and Xion) doing something patently impossible... This leads to only one conclusion...


...


...


The world of Xion is not reality either.


Xion is not fully-founded physical reality , either
Xion is plainly seen by 'blinded' Neo as a 'firey' matrix code, who knows what relationship to the real world, but most people don't doubt it because they think thy are escaped/free.
Because it isn't reality, Neo can affect things by doing a bit of apparently mysstic stuff.
The Machines might be the internal mechanisms that (normally) shepherd things properly.

There is at least one level further out. This is further telegraphed by the fact that Neo, in the 'real' Xion, is handed a spoon. Was that a reminder that, within the Matrix "There is no spoon" and he can do anything? Or was it an indication that "There is still no spoon"?


There are several possibilities for the next level out. It could be a further unreality (maybe one even 'worse' to catch those who found out that Xion was false) but that way lie recursion, so let us avoid that question for the time being and drill out to the Ultimate reality. The following are the possible realities that I expected: Neo is playing a game. Either single-player or multiplayer, a bit like the Better-Than-Life game (Red Dwarf reference...) and maybe Neo is doing well.
It's a brain-stimulation system for people within pod, in induced comas, who are survivors of some starship tragedy on an uninhabitable world, who are being sustained physically and mentally while rescue comes.
It's a penal system. Either only Neo (the suitably perverse might actually exchange Neo for Smith, of course!) or perhaps the whole/majority of humans encountered are prisoners, being re-educated, and rebels are 'dumped' out into more punishing levels (wossisname who sells the team out to Smith in the first is earning good behaviour by conorming, and can be made to forget the unreality). Who knows if there's parole/release available, it may just be comsidered more humane (to the well-behaved ones).
Neo is an artificial construct himself. An experiment in artificial intelligence that needs to be progressively educated in increasingly 'realistic' artificial worlds to some purpose or other (of which I have many answers, too many to answer, some are reflected in the above questions, e.g. game-playing, operation of automated systems, etc).
There are Machines all the way out. ;)

I've had to cut that list short, I'm waffling. You get the idea.

Never thought of it that way, interesting

Keanu Reeves has a top to his ladder?
Yup, its all of two rungs up from the bottom...






















































and they're very closely spaced rungs at that

The first Matrix was darn near perfect. Then came the two sequels, that almost had absolutely nothing to do with the original movie. Not that I didn't enjoy them, but what has Neo becoming a super-hero and constructing an elaborate, but ultimately nonsensical mythos to justify the premise of Neo as superhero/savior? And the whole expansion of the Smith thing (who was a minor character in the first Matrix) to provide Neo with an challenging protagonist was a little bit reaching for effect. That being said, the two sequels were a lot of fun to watch. But they were ridiculous and contrived, not to mention overly convoluted in their layout, which then led to some quite stupefying dialogue in a futile effort to "explain" it. The original was thought provoking and disturbing science fiction. The latter two Matrix movies just lost the focus of the original and became ultimately so ridiculous that it became the whole reason to watch it. Just to see what they would try next. But it could have been so much more. It could have been a classic.

Looking for a movie with really deep philosophy and logic, and layers of meaning it takes many viewings and much discussion to even begin to decipher? This is the movie for you too.

"Really deep philosophy" ? Compared to the average hollywood movie - yes. But for someone who has ever opened a basic philosophy textbook ? No way.

I found the Matrix movies very dull.
By the 2nd one, they were randomly inserting action/fight scenes just to break up the monotony, and it became more and more apparent that the Wachowski bros over-indulging themselves more and more into their stylish leather b&d fetishes.

Like that dance scene in Zion. We have a big, long-winded, boring speech by Fishburne and suddenly rave music plays from nowhere and it starts raining. IN a friggin' cave, a mile under the surface! All it was, was an opportunity for the Wacho boys to show off how arty and stylish they are with wet t-shirted models prancing about in slo-mo.
What exactly it had to do with the story, though...

I remember another bit where Nero has a long boring speech with some old guy in Zion, then goes back into the matrix to see the old black woman. He walks into her place and is immediately attacked by a Chinese guy. They fight for a few minutes then the Chinese guy suddenly stops, says, 'Oh just had to make sure it was you. She's in the back.' Nero goes through and has another long boring talk with someone else.
Point of the fight scene?
None, except to break up the monotony of the movie. Without it, we would have been subjected to around 30 minutes of boring speeches. So they insert a pointless fight scene 1/2 way through.

That's shit movie-making imo.

The first movie was always on the border of style over substance, but just managed to hang in there. The next two were bloated over-indulged pieces of stylish crap that had no substance whatsoever.

IMO.

I really enjoyed the first, fell asleep during the second and didn't even bother to watch the third.
Ditto. Exactly, to the word, what happened with me.

Ditto. Exactly, to the word, what happened with me.
Same with me, except I actually sat through the turd one. But that was only because I got in for free.

Still felt like I'd wasted my money by the end of it, though.

Same with me, exceot I actually sat through the turd one. But that was onlt because I got in for free.

Still felt like I'd wasted my money by the end of it, though.
Ahh! That feeling sucks. Happened to me at a cricket game just last week. Jumped over the fence.. After 30minutes weather turned crap and was so windy. Stayed though because I got in for free. And yea, when I left, had that "waste of fucking money" type feeling too. Strange.
Guess the third movie isn't worth seeing by the sounds of things.

"Really deep philosophy" ? Compared to the average hollywood movie - yes. But for someone who has ever opened a basic philosophy textbook ? No way.
It's not even that substantial compared to most Hollywood films that don't involve Vin Diesel, to be honest. There's a lot more going on in Existenz or Dark City.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/dr_dan2/1matrix.jpg

pretty much

I'll tell you what was wrong with the trilogy, it was the second two films. especially the last one, it was awful. what a shame.

The problem was that, the third movie did not conclude the trilogy properly... It went part of the way (and a fourth movie might be able to do so, though I wouldn't necessarily wish it upon anyone that there be one) but it missed the conclusion tha the endof the second movie all but sent you an email about...


Movies 1 and 2 tell us that...

-snip-
the short answer is that it was all neo's dream while he was asleep at the computer in the first movie. answers everything http://69.93.183.37/html/emoticons/sleep.gif
too much porn can do that to you, you know ;)

I love the trilogy. I do think the first was best as an overall film, but some of the scenes in the other two were fantastic.
*nods*

if you watch all three together, they're mesmerizing. but individually would only really choose to watch the first (unless i've seen it recently etc etc other considerations aside)