The Matrix Trilogy

[w00tage]

Haxor powers only work IN THE MATRIX. That's the fundamental premise of the show - in the Matrix, people (not just Neo) can be superhuman. OUTSIDE of the Matrix, they are all just people, and the machines have a massive physical advantage, which is why we lost the war and were driven to the brink of extinction. Only in the Matrix can we fight on even near-equal terms against the machines, and even then only as guerilla fighters.

The instant Neo stretched out his hand in the real world and made something happen to machines, I knew the creators had lost it.

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

No. Just...no. Neo is an ordinary guy who became a leet haxor and was recruited by the human underground, wherein it was found he was an extraordinary haxor who could create an unprecedented two-way connection with the Matrix, allowing him to hax it and bend it to his will. Through the machinery of the Matrix. When he was connected to the Matrix.

I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't and don't buy any part of the "we haz a godlike plan beyondz ur comprehensionz that explain everythingz" approach. That's what I meant by "ridiculous plot contrivances".

 

[Woodsey]

Haxor powers only work IN THE MATRIX. That's the fundamental premise of the show - in the Matrix, people (not just Neo) can be superhuman. OUTSIDE of the Matrix, they are all just people, and the machines have a massive physical advantage, which is why we lost the war and were driven to the brink of extinction. Only in the Matrix can we fight on even near-equal terms against the machines, and even then only as guerilla fighters.

The instant Neo stretched out his hand in the real world and made something happen to machines, I knew the creators had lost it.

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

No. Just...no. Neo is an ordinary guy who became a leet haxor and was recruited by the human underground, wherein it was found he was an extraordinary haxor who could create an unprecedented two-way connection with the Matrix, allowing him to hax it and bend it to his will. Through the machinery of the Matrix. When he was connected to the Matrix.

I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't and don't buy any part of the "we haz a godlike plan beyondz ur comprehensionz that explain everythingz" approach. That's what I meant by "ridiculous plot contrivances".

It's not beyond anyone's comprehension, nor do they pretend it is. In fact much of it works on the same basic principle of maintaining a regular computer. It's also noted that Le Plan had to be iterated upon several times because they kept fucking it up, and even then it was imperfect (because Neo didn't do what he was supposed to, initially).

If you don't like the idea that it's 'foretold' and that Neo's role in the films is by design then it begs the question of why you didn't take an issue with those exact elements in the first film. It's difficult to criticise a film which questions the nature of free will just because it at points seems to take up the side of the argument which argues it doesn't actually exist.

I can understand not liking the fact that Neo has real world 'powers', but that doesn't mean they are without a reasonable explanation or a result of the creators losing their minds.

 

[Starke]

So over these past few days I've re-watched one of my favourite film series. The Matrix trilogy. The last time I saw them (years ago) I really liked them, but some of it went over my head. I never really understood all the hate for the sequels though. At the time I enjoyed them all around the same amount. After watching them again I feel more capable to talk about them, so I thought I might as well start up a conversation.

I've often heard people criticize the 2 sequel films for focusing too much on action and the "real" world instead of the world of The Matrix, while the first film was a lot more thought provoking. I can see why people would make these criticisms, but I don't think they are entirely true.

Honestly, there is a valid argument to saying, "Reloaded and Revolutions spent too much time in the 'real' world". It sounds like a straw man, but when you get down to it, what was interesting in the original film was simulated world of The Matrix itself. Stepping back from that, spending time dealing with the generic robotpocalypse #667 for a huge chunk of Reloaded and Revolutions was a fundamentally flawed approach to setting up the films.

It was the easiest place to set them, obviously, but also the least interesting, in part because it's the easiest. While the assault on Zion is clearly important to the characters, it is, in a very real way, thematically less interesting than most of the scenarios presented in the original film.

The first film in the series was the most concept heavy, but it wasn't the only one to deal a lot in these kind of themes. A lot of the philosophical themes in the first film are there to set the scene for the series and explain the world. They did deal with them in some depth but that wasn't the whole point of the film. It's a sci-fi action film, not a lecture. The Cartesian concepts of reality and our experience of it are mostly a way to explain how The Matrix works, and the whole series is building up a world and a story based on the idea that it is all real, instead of dealing with the question of "what if". It takes that as a starting point instead of it being the message behind the film.

The film actually trends towards a kind of philosophical, and pop culture kitchen sink. It seems deeper than it actually is.

To be fair, the first film actually works pretty well. It's a straightforward action film, with some aspirations at philosophy that basically involve cribbing off everything that isn't nailed down, pacing those out with fight choreography that takes it's cues from John Woo.

The exposition doesn't lead to anything particularly intelligent or mind-blowing beyond "you're not in the real world", but for the film's story to work, it doesn't need to. It's a generic, you're the prophesied chosen one story line in paint by numbers from a dog eared copy of Hero of a Thousand Faces.

What we're left with a rather good action film, with special effects that would have aged much better if they hadn't been used in every car and mobile phone commercial for the next five years.

Reloaded does still have a lot of philosophical themes in it, but instead of focusing on the question of reality is focuses on the idea of free will. This is talked about a little in the first film but in the second it becomes the focus of the more thoughtful dialogue. The Oracle, The Merovingian, and The Architect all talk about it at length.[footnote]Okay, sorry, I'm honestly not trying to be a grammar Nazi here. But, as a bit of writing advice, you really shouldn't have used "it" here. It looks like the sentence is saying, "[All these characters] talked about the dialog at length," rather than "...talked about the philosophy at length." - Starke[/footnote] It examines the difference (or lack thereof) between humanity and the machines, and adds extra depth to the idea of The Matrix itself and the purpose of the characters in the film.

Ironically, there's one serious problem with, well, nearly all the exposition in the second and third film. So, fundamentally exposition is there to enlighten the viewer about the setting or plot. The problem is, most of the exposition in Reloaded and Revolution is there to "create mysteries." It's been a while since I've watched them, but the exposition rarely even sets up the action sequences in any meaningful way, it tends to just serve as a buffer between one interminable action sequence and the next.

A large part of this can probably be laid at the film being split into two separate films at the studio's insistence. It left the Wachowski with a lot of time to fill, and the plot for a single film to fill it with. Now, I'm guessing here, but it does go a long way towards explaining why characters like the Merovingian were added, and why so much of the exposition is simply there to fill time.

People often say about this film that it focuses too much time on the "real world", and I agree to some extent. But I don't believe the problem is with where the story takes place, but what happens there. The events in The Matrix are much more interesting because that is where all the characters who have interesting dialogue happen to reside. There's also the potential for better action scenes in The Matrix because of the supernatural powers granted to characters in there. The overall run time of the film doesn't actually spend that much time away from The Matrix, but when it does it fails to deliver.

Again, I really suspect the real world focus in the second and third films were simply because it was easier to write. In part this is because it's more divorced from reality, more of a fantasy landscape, while the Matrix itself is actually less of a fantasy realm, and more of a mundane modern world with superpowers.

It's really easy to write a fantasy story in whatever world you choose, it's much harder to write a story set in a world that already has a lot of rules that the viewer is already familiar with. In fact, if you go back and look at the first film, a lot of the exposition is built around explaining which rules don't apply in the Matrix, while there is almost no exposition in the entire franchise regarding the way the "real" world works.

We don't get the latter because it is, for the most part, unnecessary, and out of habit, we don't get it when we really need it (Neo has superpowers in the real world now, you say?).

Most of the events that happen are political. It's characters discussing how to defend themselves from the impending attack on Zion. Although this is a crucial part of the plot it's far less interesting than the other high concepts and fantastical action being thrown about.

Keeping within a theme here, Reloaded trends towards the easy to write kind of politics, that is to say "utter bullshit". It's been awhile, but as I recall, the political sequences in Reloaded trend in the direction of fantasy politics, guided by plot, rather than anything approaching "realistic" motivations.

There are some parts of the real world scenes that could have been much more interesting to give more focus too instead, but aren't given the time they should have had. For example they show the relationship between Link and his wife. It's clearly an attempt to show more relatable and human aspect to this part of the world, but we aren't really given enough time for it to work.

Which given the bloated run time of the films, is really inexcusable. It also is somewhat redundant give we have the potential to explore some of this with Neo and Trinity, or Morpheus and whatshername (how relationships work in Zion), and what isn't available for those characters (the children and other family dynamics,) really fall into more paint by numbers cliche. The characters don't really give us anything interesting, they hint at something that could have been, but as it stands, it's a sequence that should have been cut.

But perhaps the biggest missed opportunity is with Neo's experience with being treated as a messiah figure and how he deals with it. This is given hardly any attention at all, and is only shown very briefly. This could have added a whole lot to the film if it got the attention it deserved, but was instead ignored in favour of political talks and defence plans. But I think overall the film is still fantastic. It may have some bigger flaws than the first, but the action sequences and the cinematography are better.

I agree that the Messianic plot had some potential. I'm not sure if it fit within the framework of the film, however. As it stands it introduces one more thematic element which is swiftly forgotten once they leave Zion.

At it's core, the entire Zion sequence really feels like the film is on pause. I'm not certain if this would be an issue if the film wasn't titled "The Matrix", but, as it stands, it is a long stretch of film, divorced from the really interesting element of the setting. It becomes a long exposition dump, most of which is forgotten once they get back up to broadcast depth.

While the second film didn't sour me on the franchise completely, it was the last film I watched in theaters. I didn't bother watching the third until sometime in late 2004.

The problem isn't that it's a bad film (it is, but that's not the problem), it is that an incomplete and unsatisfying film. It sets up too many plot threads, and for the most part, Revolutions doesn't really manage to wrap those up.

There's actually another issue, and this does become pretty relevant for Revolutions. The long action sequences tend to promote a kind of fatigue.

The third film however, drops the ball quite badly. It's not necessarily a bad film, it just doesn't include a lot of what made the first 2 films so interesting. This is kind of understandable since the plot of the film doesn't really require any more investigation in to the nature of The Matrix and is more of just a conclusion to the story. It doesn't need to explain any more esoteric topics, since everything that needed to be explained already has been.

Generally speaking, exposition is something you only want in the first act. For a trilogy, that means the first act of the trilogy, though small doses in the wrong place aren't the end of the world, in the case of The Matrix trilogy, exposition is pretty massively slathered through the first two thirds of Reloaded.

A lot of this is because Reloaded backs away from the Matrix itself and has to set up the rules for an entirely new setting, and a lot of this is simply shoddy writing.

The point of the film is just to show resolution to the conflict. Although I think this is kind of sad, since the philosophical aspect of the series is one of the biggest things that makes it stand out, it's not necessarily a bad thing for the overall effectiveness of the narrative. The problem is, it doesn't do a great job of concluding the series.

Actually, this is why Revolutions is a bad movie.

On top of it, the ending that is there is an almost literal deus ex machina, one of the sloppiest cliches in writing.

The film focuses a huge amount of attention on the real world. The events taking place here aren't quite as tedious as in Reloaded, but it's still not as interesting as events in The Matrix (throughout the whole series at least). Since the main focus of the film is the attack on Zion it shows a lot of action sequences and some relatively impressive cinematography instead of the boring talking which took up most of the real world events of the last film. But there's nothing really quite as compelling about it as the events in The Matrix. Again, it lacks the interesting dialogue and is mostly focusing on action set pieces that aren't really relevant to the overall plot.

I had a friend who timed it once, the combat in Zion runs for something like forty minutes. It's a single action sequence that never ends. While that is somewhat understandable, given this is a single film in two full film parts. It's still forty minutes that can be scripted with the line "The Machines attack Zion".

The events in The Matrix don't really do much to compensate for this either. The film hardly spends any time there and the events that happen there are among the worst in that setting through the whole series. There aren't any compelling conversations and the fight sequences are short and less ambitious. Even the big fight at the end between Neo and Smith feels stunted. There are some very impressive shots in the fight, but it doesn't really feel like it was what the whole series should have been building up too. Other fights in Reloaded felt a lot better paced and exciting. It also ends far too quickly and abruptly. Neither look like they have fought to their fullest capability but suddenly Neo just decided he's going to let himself die. Obviously, this is what was supposed to happen but it didn't feel momentous, it felt like kind of a cop out. Where's the ultimate battle and the epic crescendo they seemed to be building to?

The epilogue of the film left huge plot holes too. The machines apparently give "peace" to the humans because of Neo's actions in saving The Matrix, but it's never shown what the conditions for this peace are. The humans are not all freed from The Matrix and there seems to be no reason why the machines would keep their truce. It's specified that The Matrix still exists and the machines still keep humans captive. Only those who choose to leave The Matrix actually got freedom. But the whole reason for the war was that the machines were using the humans. They wanted to destroy the machines so they could free everyone, or at least free all the humans thus destroying the machines. They failed at that, yet there is peace? And how exactly were people allowed to exit The Matrix? Did the machines just tell everyone that they were in it and give them the chance to leave? If they did that then what about the people who stayed? Did they just wipe their memory and put them back to being slaves, or were they allowed to continue in the knowledge that their whole life isn't real? Why would the machines even honour the agreement at all after they got what they wanted? The events of the film do nothing to solve the conflict between the humans and the machines. All that happens is that Neo stops Smith from taking over the real world. It's a complete mess. The only saving grace of the film is it's few action sequences, that are fun to watch, but are mostly inferior to other action scenes in the previous films.

So yeah, those are my thoughts. I really didn't expect it to come to this much text, but it just happened to come to that as I was writing it. I just hope that it doesn't turn out I'm a decade late to the conversation.

Yeah, I actually already said my piece on the ending.

I'm going to take a step back though, and chew on the second and third films a bit. I can't remember the exact chronology: Fellowship of the Ring was in 2001, and at that point, a lot of the principle photography had been done for Two Towers and Return of the King. Reloaded and Revolution were both 2003. At the time it must have looked awfully attractive to the studio to simply say, "yeah, make the second and third film at the same time". Even though there was only a single film being planned.

Given the ending of Revolutions, it's pretty apparent that the writers (the Wachowski brothers, I think) wanted to close out the sequel in a definitive way. So rather than adding another film to the schedule, they simply dragged it all out for four hours.

 

[w00tage]

Haxor powers only work IN THE MATRIX. That's the fundamental premise of the show - in the Matrix, people (not just Neo) can be superhuman. OUTSIDE of the Matrix, they are all just people, and the machines have a massive physical advantage, which is why we lost the war and were driven to the brink of extinction. Only in the Matrix can we fight on even near-equal terms against the machines, and even then only as guerilla fighters.

The instant Neo stretched out his hand in the real world and made something happen to machines, I knew the creators had lost it.

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

No. Just...no. Neo is an ordinary guy who became a leet haxor and was recruited by the human underground, wherein it was found he was an extraordinary haxor who could create an unprecedented two-way connection with the Matrix, allowing him to hax it and bend it to his will. Through the machinery of the Matrix. When he was connected to the Matrix.

I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't and don't buy any part of the "we haz a godlike plan beyondz ur comprehensionz that explain everythingz" approach. That's what I meant by "ridiculous plot contrivances".

It's not beyond anyone's comprehension, nor do they pretend it is. In fact much of it works on the same basic principle of maintaining a regular computer. It's also noted that Le Plan had to be iterated upon several times because they kept fucking it up, and even then it was imperfect (because Neo didn't do what he was supposed to, initially).

If you don't like the idea that it's 'foretold' and that Neo's role in the films is by design then it begs the question of why you didn't take an issue with those exact elements in the first film. It's difficult to criticise a film which questions the nature of free will just because it at points seems to take up the side of the argument which argues it doesn't actually exist.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the only people calling him "the One" in the first movie are the crew of the ship captained by a guy who himself has near-legendary status and is actively promoting the idea that Neo is the "One". And even his crew were skeptical about the whole idea, although they never openly opposed it. Who's going to argue with the captain, especially when he's close to a living legend to boot? So it all came off as Morpheus' personal belief driving things, which is acceptable in terms of the plot. A character doesn't have to be right to behave consistently and believably.

Also, there were quite a few Matrix-bending talents on display at the Oracle's place (which name is also explainable by the human survivors seeking mysticism as a source of hope in their desperation). The message I got there was that Neo wasn't "the One", he was only potentially a "One", and if he didn't manage to develop the abilities needed to turn the tide of the war, there were plenty of other candidates in the pipeline.

Regarding whether I "like the idea" or not, that's irrelevant. Plots need to make sense within their setting. The plot of the first movie made enough sci-fi sense to hold together. The plots of the second and third movies departed from science fiction into futuristic fantasy, then ended up using deus ex machina (literally) to try to make the fantasy elements believable.

 

[Starke]

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

You know, saying Neo had Wi-Fi capabilities in his implants, or that all of the humans from the Matrix did, but only Neo could use them because he's "super special", would have been great, and gone a long way towards explaining the sudden superpowers in the real world...

So would the idea that the "real world", and the matrix were both simulations. And the "real world" only exists to salvage individuals who fundamentally rebel against the matrix simulation, and would otherwise be lost.

The only problem is, those are both about equally supported by the films' text.

 

[Starke]

Also, there were quite a few Matrix-bending talents on display at the Oracle's place (which name is also explainable by the human survivors seeking mysticism as a source of hope in their desperation). The message I got there was that Neo wasn't "the One", he was only potentially a "One", and if he didn't manage to develop the abilities needed to turn the tide of the war, there were plenty of other candidates in the pipeline.

My recollection is, she pretty much explicitly tells Neo he's not the One unless he really wants to be. Well, as explicit as she ever gets, but still.

 

[w00tage]

Also, there were quite a few Matrix-bending talents on display at the Oracle's place (which name is also explainable by the human survivors seeking mysticism as a source of hope in their desperation). The message I got there was that Neo wasn't "the One", he was only potentially a "One", and if he didn't manage to develop the abilities needed to turn the tide of the war, there were plenty of other candidates in the pipeline.

My recollection is, she pretty much explicitly tells Neo he's not the One unless he really wants to be. Well, as explicit as she ever gets, but still.

That's true, but remember that the title "The One" comes from the first "One" - the guy who had such awesome abilities that he could free the first people from the Matrix.

What I got was that humanity was actively seeking more like him, but hadn't found one yet. The first person they found with such abilities, and who was willing to take on the role, would be given that legendary character's title.

 

[Scrustle]

Reloaded does still have a lot of philosophical themes in it, but instead of focusing on the question of reality is focuses on the idea of free will. This is talked about a little in the first film but in the second it becomes the focus of the more thoughtful dialogue. The Oracle, The Merovingian, and The Architect all talk about it at length. It examines the difference (or lack thereof) between humanity and the machines, and adds extra depth to the idea of The Matrix itself and the purpose of the characters in the film.

Ironically, there's one serious problem with, well, nearly all the exposition in the second and third film. So, fundamentally exposition is there to enlighten the viewer about the setting or plot. The problem is, most of the exposition in Reloaded and Revolution is there to "create mysteries." It's been a while since I've watched them, but the exposition rarely even sets up the action sequences in any meaningful way, it tends to just serve as a buffer between one interminable action sequence and the next.

A large part of this can probably be laid at the film being split into two separate films at the studio's insistence. It left the Wachowski with a lot of time to fill, and the plot for a single film to fill it with. Now, I'm guessing here, but it does go a long way towards explaining why characters like the Merovingian were added, and why so much of the exposition is simply there to fill time.

I think the exposition in the second film is supposed to lead up to the moment when Neo meets The Architect and he is given the choice of whether to return to The Source or to save Trinity. He gets confused about to what he's supposed to to because he knows that his actions have been prophesied, but he has been hit with the revelation that he is nothing more than a way to keep the balance of The Matrix. He also feels compelled to deny prophecy since he doesn't like the idea of fate, and has an attachment to Trinity. All the talk of free will and such come together at that point.

There are some parts of the real world scenes that could have been much more interesting to give more focus too instead, but aren't given the time they should have had. For example they show the relationship between Link and his wife. It's clearly an attempt to show more relatable and human aspect to this part of the world, but we aren't really given enough time for it to work.

Which given the bloated run time of the films, is really inexcusable. It also is somewhat redundant give we have the potential to explore some of this with Neo and Trinity, or Morpheus and whatshername (how relationships work in Zion), and what isn't available for those characters (the children and other family dynamics,) really fall into more paint by numbers cliche. The characters don't really give us anything interesting, they hint at something that could have been, but as it stands, it's a sequence that should have been cut.

I agree, it would have been much better to focus on the relationships between Neo and Trinity, and the love triangle of sorts between Morpheus, Niobe and whatshisface. They missed a huge opportunity there.

At it's core, the entire Zion sequence really feels like the film is on pause.

That is so right.

The long action sequences tend to promote a kind of fatigue.

What do you mean by that? Just that they go on too long?

It's still forty minutes that can be scripted with the line "The Machines attack Zion".

Again, so right.

 

[Woodsey]

Haxor powers only work IN THE MATRIX. That's the fundamental premise of the show - in the Matrix, people (not just Neo) can be superhuman. OUTSIDE of the Matrix, they are all just people, and the machines have a massive physical advantage, which is why we lost the war and were driven to the brink of extinction. Only in the Matrix can we fight on even near-equal terms against the machines, and even then only as guerilla fighters.

The instant Neo stretched out his hand in the real world and made something happen to machines, I knew the creators had lost it.

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

No. Just...no. Neo is an ordinary guy who became a leet haxor and was recruited by the human underground, wherein it was found he was an extraordinary haxor who could create an unprecedented two-way connection with the Matrix, allowing him to hax it and bend it to his will. Through the machinery of the Matrix. When he was connected to the Matrix.

I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't and don't buy any part of the "we haz a godlike plan beyondz ur comprehensionz that explain everythingz" approach. That's what I meant by "ridiculous plot contrivances".

It's not beyond anyone's comprehension, nor do they pretend it is. In fact much of it works on the same basic principle of maintaining a regular computer. It's also noted that Le Plan had to be iterated upon several times because they kept fucking it up, and even then it was imperfect (because Neo didn't do what he was supposed to, initially).

If you don't like the idea that it's 'foretold' and that Neo's role in the films is by design then it begs the question of why you didn't take an issue with those exact elements in the first film. It's difficult to criticise a film which questions the nature of free will just because it at points seems to take up the side of the argument which argues it doesn't actually exist.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the only people calling him "the One" in the first movie are the crew of the ship captained by a guy who himself has near-legendary status and is actively promoting the idea that Neo is the "One". And even his crew were skeptical about the whole idea, although they never openly opposed it. Who's going to argue with the captain, especially when he's close to a living legend to boot? So it all came off as Morpheus' personal belief driving things, which is acceptable in terms of the plot. A character doesn't have to be right to behave consistently and believably.

Also, there were quite a few Matrix-bending talents on display at the Oracle's place (which name is also explainable by the human survivors seeking mysticism as a source of hope in their desperation). The message I got there was that Neo wasn't "the One", he was only potentially a "One", and if he didn't manage to develop the abilities needed to turn the tide of the war, there were plenty of other candidates in the pipeline.

Regarding whether I "like the idea" or not, that's irrelevant. Plots need to make sense within their setting. The plot of the first movie made enough sci-fi sense to hold together. The plots of the second and third movies departed from science fiction into futuristic fantasy, then ended up using deus ex machina (literally) to try to make the fantasy elements believable.

I can agree that the real-world powers do begin to pull it away from the relatively hard Sci-Fi setting of the film's real world, although personally it never got to the point where it was breaking its own rules - but yes, the first film is far tighter in that regard. Like I said, if you want to pick bones with that then the thing to do it with is the sight power he has, not the ability to blow them up, since that'd seem to be far more magic-power-y.

As for Morpheus being the only one to say it, the Oracle pretty much does too as soon as they meet, Neo just interprets it as him not being the One. Likewise, I assumed the kids were simply advanced 'red pills'. I'm pretty sure Morpheus mentions that age plays a major factor in waking people up, and since they presumably only find the vast majority of people when they're in perhaps their early twenties, that heavily limits their potential. I guess they could be suspected 'Ones' given their powers.

If it's assumed that the 'Path of the One' is heavily directed though, then it might just be a case of picking someone and ensuring they hit specific triggers to unlock their full potential.

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

You know, saying Neo had Wi-Fi capabilities in his implants, or that all of the humans from the Matrix did, but only Neo could use them because he's "super special", would have been great, and gone a long way towards explaining the sudden superpowers in the real world...

So would the idea that the "real world", and the matrix were both simulations. And the "real world" only exists to salvage individuals who fundamentally rebel against the matrix simulation, and would otherwise be lost.

The only problem is, those are both about equally supported by the films' text.

So the more logical explanation is that he just has magical powers because the film delivers no direct exposition on the subject?

 

[Starke]

So the more logical explanation is that he just has magical powers because the film delivers no direct exposition on the subject?

No, they're both logical explanations. The problem is, neither is supported by the actual films themselves. So they end up in the range of fanwank, no offense.

Neo getting force powers at random doesn't have an explanation, and is a serious problem with the film. If the film explained that somehow, it would be fine, but it really doesn't. The Wi-Fi and Russian Doll theories are both reasonable explanations, but they're both predicated on information the the film doesn't establish.

The thing is, the film really needed to deliver exposition on this point, because it does explicitly violate the rules the universe set up for itself, but then it never does.

 

[Woodsey]

So the more logical explanation is that he just has magical powers because the film delivers no direct exposition on the subject?

No, they're both logical explanations. The problem is, neither is supported by the actual films themselves. So they end up in the range of fanwank, no offense.

Neo getting force powers at random doesn't have an explanation, and is a serious problem with the film. If the film explained that somehow, it would be fine, but it really doesn't. The Wi-Fi and Russian Doll theories are both reasonable explanations, but they're both predicated on information the the film doesn't establish.

The thing is, the film really needed to deliver exposition on this point, because it does explicitly violate the rules the universe set up for itself, but then it never does.

So infer. I can see that annoying people but at the same time, they are not films known for having a single interpretation, or for even favouring particular interpretations. Him being connected to the Machines technologically has always seemed obvious to me and not really needing any explanation, although there is dialogue which hints towards it.

 

[Starke]

Reloaded does still have a lot of philosophical themes in it, but instead of focusing on the question of reality is focuses on the idea of free will. This is talked about a little in the first film but in the second it becomes the focus of the more thoughtful dialogue. The Oracle, The Merovingian, and The Architect all talk about it at length. It examines the difference (or lack thereof) between humanity and the machines, and adds extra depth to the idea of The Matrix itself and the purpose of the characters in the film.

Ironically, there's one serious problem with, well, nearly all the exposition in the second and third film. So, fundamentally exposition is there to enlighten the viewer about the setting or plot. The problem is, most of the exposition in Reloaded and Revolution is there to "create mysteries." It's been a while since I've watched them, but the exposition rarely even sets up the action sequences in any meaningful way, it tends to just serve as a buffer between one interminable action sequence and the next.

A large part of this can probably be laid at the film being split into two separate films at the studio's insistence. It left the Wachowski with a lot of time to fill, and the plot for a single film to fill it with. Now, I'm guessing here, but it does go a long way towards explaining why characters like the Merovingian were added, and why so much of the exposition is simply there to fill time.

I think the exposition in the second film is supposed to lead up to the moment when Neo meets The Architect and he is given the choice of whether to return to The Source or to save Trinity. He gets confused about to what he's supposed to to because he knows that his actions have been prophesied, but he has been hit with the revelation that he is nothing more than a way to keep the balance of The Matrix. He also feels compelled to deny prophecy since he doesn't like the idea of fate, and has an attachment to Trinity. All the talk of free will and such come together at that point.

You may actually have a point there. But, and this is where I get into a little bit of trouble given it's been a few years since I last watched them all (I re watched the original film last month a couple times for research purposes). What I remember is the philosophy that's dealt in Reloaded as being a bit muddy.

If that's accurate, then there's a substantial signal-to-noise problem with how well it's presented.

There are some parts of the real world scenes that could have been much more interesting to give more focus too instead, but aren't given the time they should have had. For example they show the relationship between Link and his wife. It's clearly an attempt to show more relatable and human aspect to this part of the world, but we aren't really given enough time for it to work.

Which given the bloated run time of the films, is really inexcusable. It also is somewhat redundant give we have the potential to explore some of this with Neo and Trinity, or Morpheus and whatshername (how relationships work in Zion), and what isn't available for those characters (the children and other family dynamics,) really fall into more paint by numbers cliche. The characters don't really give us anything interesting, they hint at something that could have been, but as it stands, it's a sequence that should have been cut.

I agree, it would have been much better to focus on the relationships between Neo and Trinity, and the love triangle of sorts between Morpheus, Niobe and whatshisface. They missed a huge opportunity there.

Yeah, I generally try to avoid saying "how this could be better", when I'm doing analysis, but yeah, that does sound like an improvement. Worst part is, I don't even really care which whatshisface we're talking about.

The long action sequences tend to promote a kind of fatigue.

What do you mean by that? Just that they go on too long?

Yes, but I'm aiming at a symptom, not the cause.

The problem is, when you're running a fight sequence in one location with the same combatants for more than about 10-15 minutes, the viewer will get tired of watching it, maybe not bored, but tired of it. You can push those numbers out by another 5 minutes or so if you're actually in the climactic battle.

Otherwise, you really run the risk of a film that is downright unpleasant to watch. Which is where Reloaded and Revolutions end up for a lot of people.

 

[Starke]

So infer. I can see that annoying people but at the same time, they are not films known for having a single interpretation, or for even favouring particular interpretations. Him being connected to the Machines technologically has always seemed obvious to me and not really needing any explanation, although there is dialogue which hints towards it.

Inferring is one thing. It's fine if we're talking about some background character, or some relatively unimportant detail.

Thing is, we're talking about something which the plot is entirely dependent upon. His ability to interface with the machines remotely is an ability no one else displays in the trilogy, an ability which is never attributed to being "the One" in the film, and is never explained. From start to finish it's not a plot hole so much as just really bad writing.

You can say "this is why", and that's fine, but it doesn't excuse a major plot point being unexplained in the material itself.

 

[Woodsey]

So infer. I can see that annoying people but at the same time, they are not films known for having a single interpretation, or for even favouring particular interpretations. Him being connected to the Machines technologically has always seemed obvious to me and not really needing any explanation, although there is dialogue which hints towards it.

Inferring is one thing. It's fine if we're talking about some background character, or some relatively unimportant detail.

Thing is, we're talking about something which the plot is entirely dependent upon. His ability to interface with the machines remotely is an ability no one else displays in the trilogy, an ability which is never attributed to being "the One" in the film, and is never explained. From start to finish it's not a plot hole so much as just really bad writing.

You can say "this is why", and that's fine, but it doesn't excuse a major plot point being unexplained in the material itself.

In what film? It is explained after-the-fact in Revolutions that his 'powers' exist in both worlds because he is the One.


Note also: "The Source, that's what you felt when you touched those sentinels."

'Inferring is one thing. It's fine if we're talking about some background character, or some relatively unimportant detail.'

That depends entirely upon the material, and all three Matrix films are largely ambiguous in plenty of key areas.

 

[Dudeman325]

Great, now I feel like watching Bill and Ted again.

"Do you know when the Mongols ruled China?"

 

[Nexxis]

I liked the first movies, but I didn't care for the sequels. They just didn't seem to captivate the magic that the first movie did, like that crane kick and bullet time. The sequels felt like they were trying to do the same stuff again, just with less effect and it, at times, didn't look as good as it did in the first movie. I also didn't find myself to be compelled by the story. It was interesting, but I felt like they pulled stuff out of the air just for the sake of making a sequel. Not to mention that the plot just seemed to get more confusing as time went on. By the end of it, I just didn't care. This is not helped by the fact that my mom watched the movies so much that I got annoyed by them.

 

[Scrustle]

You may actually have a point there. But, and this is where I get into a little bit of trouble given it's been a few years since I last watched them all (I re watched the original film last month a couple times for research purposes). What I remember is the philosophy that's dealt in Reloaded as being a bit muddy.

If that's accurate, then there's a substantial signal-to-noise problem with how well it's presented.

Yeah I don't think the concepts were presented as well as they were in the first film. When they do come up it's sometimes not apparent at the time what it has to do with the plot, and when Neo meets The Architect it gets very heavy handed.

Yes, but I'm aiming at a symptom, not the cause.

The problem is, when you're running a fight sequence in one location with the same combatants for more than about 10-15 minutes, the viewer will get tired of watching it, maybe not bored, but tired of it. You can push those numbers out by another 5 minutes or so if you're actually in the climactic battle.

Otherwise, you really run the risk of a film that is downright unpleasant to watch. Which is where Reloaded and Revolutions end up for a lot of people.

I didn't mind the extended fight sequences in Reloaded. In fact I think a lot of them are the best in the series. I rather like how long they go on for, they rarely seem to drag on to me. But in Revolutions it gets very tiresome, especially the Zion attack.

 

[Starke]

The problem is, when you're running a fight sequence in one location with the same combatants for more than about 10-15 minutes, the viewer will get tired of watching it, maybe not bored, but tired of it. You can push those numbers out by another 5 minutes or so if you're actually in the climactic battle.

Otherwise, you really run the risk of a film that is downright unpleasant to watch. Which is where Reloaded and Revolutions end up for a lot of people.

I didn't mind the extended fight sequences in Reloaded. In fact I think a lot of them are the best in the series. I rather like how long they go on for, they rarely seem to drag on to me. But in Revolutions it gets very tiresome, especially the Zion attack.

I'd have to check, but for the most part what I recall of the fights in Reloaded, the film turns into a bleary mess for me. You have a fight that turns into a chase that turns into a duel. Even though it's the same sequence, you've got enough variety to keep things from going stale, well, usually. My recollection is that Reloaded pushes pretty close to the limit a couple times, and runs the risk of alienating viewers.

Incidentally, this is a big part of why the protracted fights in the first Kill Bill avoid this kind of fatigue. Fights transition from one location to another, from duels to mass brawls and back to duels.

The same can't be said of Revolutions, where we have crap like the Zion sequence that never fucking ends. Even the Neo/Smith fight doesn't have the dynamic quality of their fight in Reloaded, where it transitions into a mass brawl.

 

[Starke]

That depends entirely upon the material, and all three Matrix films are largely ambiguous in plenty of key areas.

Which suggests a pervasive problem of poor writing throughout the series.

Now, I know what you're probably talking about, but saying, "look over there the writing is worse", doesn't excuse the problem in front of you.

For the record, I'm not even going to try to watch the entity of that clip, the dialog's so bad, I think it's going to cause my brain to bleed.

 

[Woodsey]

That depends entirely upon the material, and all three Matrix films are largely ambiguous in plenty of key areas.

Which suggests a pervasive problem of poor writing throughout the series.

Now, I know what you're probably talking about, but saying, "look over there the writing is worse", doesn't excuse the problem in front of you.

For the record, I'm not even going to try to watch the entity of that clip, the dialog's so bad, I think it's going to cause my brain to bleed.

No, that suggests you like having everything fact-checked in film for you. Which is fine, but leaving things open to numerous interpretations is not 'bad writing'.

Neo acts as the audience's vessel and, by their nature, the other characters do not know the answers or act to keep him blinded from them.

And I'll just assume you watched the clip, got to the point where it knocked back what you said previously and you're now going to try and avoid that point.