MATRIX: revolution

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Then they failed as filmmakers. Again, it's not the audience's job to dig and try to figure out what's going on.

 

Do you work in public education? I hear teachers nowadays are giving out answers during tests. It seems they think that its not the "job" of the kids to learn.

[awe4one]

ANY good piece of art, literature, or cinematography is one that compels you to dwell on its complexity, to try and grasp the subtle nuances of its make-up. A good book to me is one that keeps me thinking well after I am done with it. Same with a good movie.

 

I can deal with this somewhat if the movie we were talking about intrigued enough for further review. The second movie (which I saw this morning) did not on any level. It was a jumbled mess. Why go back and look for a hidden meaning if it didn't even offer the basic premise of being entertaining; on any level? Don't care about the characters, care less about the story, and even the visuals were lacking. At least when watching a CGI fest like Spider-Man, the characters and story made-up for the shortfalls. The Matrix Reloaded didn't offer a thing, other than being used as a frisbee on it's way to the trash.

 

Jim

[awe4one]

Do you work in public education? I hear teachers nowadays are giving out answers during tests. It seems they think that its not the "job" of the kids to learn.

 

This is a movie we're talking about not 6th grade math. It's supposed to entertain, and convey the message, in the space of two hours or so. There's no homework involved.

 

The fact you can't come up with something better illustrates the weakness of your argument.....

 

 

Jim

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

The fact you can't come up with something better illustrates the weakness of your argument.....

 

There is no argument here, only a difference in opinion. We've both made our viewpoints clear.

 

Here's a toast to the fourth Matrix movie....Matrix: Rehashed.

[awe4one]

Here's a toast to the fourth Matrix movie....Matrix:Rehashed.

 

Hear, hear! But I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a cartoon along the way.......

 

 

Jim

[fantastic_four]

And when Shakespeare was presenting his plays for the first time, the audience did speak the language. They got the meaning the first time.....

 

You're wrong about this. His peers thought he was nuts; nobody spoke like his characters did and the critics of his day made the same arguments you're making about how if nobody can understand it, what use is it? If you're interested, I'll go search for some web links with info about how he was regarded in his day.

 

 

And on another note, are you seriously trying to compare the "Brothers" with great literature?

 

I already said I don't understand the films well enough to make a comparison, but there are some similarities with Shakespeare. Shakespeare's plays were immensely popular while he was writing them just like the Matrix movies have been, and his plays were also doggedly denounced or simply ignored by the critics of his day for being overly complex. I'm saying that complex writing doesn't necessarily mean bad writing and that it's best to withhold judgement about a complex work you haven't spent enough time studying yet to form an fair, educated opinion.

 

It could be that the full themes of the Matrix are a bunch of crapola, but until you've identified those themes, I don't see how that can be said. The first Matrix was the finest science fiction from the last decade, but I didn't believe that until I had watched the film 3 or 4 times...I'm still undecided about Reloaded and Revolutions.

[fantastic_four]

[This is a movie we're talking about not 6th grade math. It's supposed to entertain, and convey the message, in the space of two hours or so. There's no homework involved.

 

The fact you can't come up with something better illustrates the weakness of your argument.....

 

Some people are entertained by intellectual challenge. I'd put Matrix somewhere between a crossword puzzle and a Rubik's cube in terms of complex, involved entertainment. But even without the complex stuff, the movies were rather entertaining, although the first two I definitely thought were much more fun to watch. The highway scene from Reloaded was probably the best action sequence in all three films!!! And there's little doubt that the Wachowskis have had a major original impact on action and fighting sequences in all types of films. The scene with the hundreds of Smiths was fun too. All the APUs shooting the sentinels in Revolutions was compelling, but rather dark and stressful and overall not as effective as the action sequences in the first two films.

 

The peripheral characters were more interesting in the second one also...the twins and the Merovingian were BAD-ARSE, much better than the supporting cast from any of the three films. But the first film was definitely the best overall.

[HooDeeDoo]

But it's both lazy and inaccurate to state that their writing is "bad" just because it's beyond what you're able to absorb in a single sitting.

 

I'm not saying that I couldn't absorb the minutae of the plot - I'm saying I couldn't follow what the was going on!

 

For instance, the original Oracle dies between the second and third movie and they cast Mary Alice (who did a great job of mimicking the original Oracle's speech patterns). The Oracle then gives a mind-numbing speech about choices and why she looks different. NONE of it made any sense and NONE of it was ever clarified. Then what the was with her showing up in the puddle? HUH? I know I know - I saw what happened with Smith and her but HUH?

 

Also, it's not bad writing because I can't absorb it in a single sitting. That's not the standard for bad writing. It's bad writing because, well, it's BAD WRITING. The whole movie is poorly constructed and the dialog is embarassing at times.

 

 

It's arrogantly dismissive--not to mention entirely entirely inaccurate--to say that the story is a "mess" without more study just because the Wachowskis intentionally overwhelmed you.

 

Yeah, with BAD WRITING.

 

[HooDeeDoo]

Using that criteria, Shakespeare's writings were also a "mess." People didn't speak like he wrote back when he lived...that complex style of language was just the way Shakespeare liked to present his stories.

 

That "complex style of language" is called "poetry".

[drice6900]

Ah well, there is still The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Great story, great action, great production, and hey! great literature

 

- D.

[supapimp]

Ah well, there is still The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Great story, great action, great production, and hey! great literature

 

- D.

[fantastic_four]

For instance, the original Oracle dies between the second and third movie and they cast Mary Alice (who did a great job of mimicking the original Oracle's speech patterns). The Oracle then gives a mind-numbing speech about choices and why she looks different. NONE of it made any sense and NONE of it was ever clarified.

 

That was backpedaling due to the actress's death, but it was clarified--the Merovingian made reference to it. He told Seraph that his presense there meant that the Oracle must have found a new shell and that she had paid the price for taking something from him. I assumed he meant the keymaker, since the Oracle sent Neo after him to take the keymaker in Reloaded.

 

 

Then what the was with her showing up in the puddle? HUH? I know I know - I saw what happened with Smith and her but HUH?

 

Smith kept asking her a question that was something like "if you're the all-knowing Oracle, and you know what's going to happen, why didn't you know that I was going to come here?" So...why did she stay there and let him take her over? And why did the Architect say to her at the end, "that was an awful risk you took"?

 

I haven't figured this out either, but I see a bunch of hints that I haven't pieced together yet, and with that many out there and with so much tight control everywhere else in the plot and story, I'm not ready to dismiss it as the Wachowskis losing track of their intent yet.

 

 

Also, it's not bad writing because I can't absorb it in a single sitting. That's not the standard for bad writing. It's bad writing because, well, it's BAD WRITING. The whole movie is poorly constructed and the dialog is embarassing at times.

 

I wasn't a big fan of some of the dialogue either, particularly Morpheus and Trinity's. I've got to disagree about the "construction" though, assuming you mean the plot and/or story; I see a very tightly controlled story that although I haven't figured out entirely, that yields clues in almost every scene, and a lot of the clues to 2 and 3 are actually back in the original Matrix. It's awfully tough to piece it all together when there's that many subtle pieces, but I'm reserving judgement until I've put some of the hanging clues together.

 

 

Yeah, with BAD WRITING.

 

Can you be more specific? I won't argue the dialogue, but what else?

[fantastic_four]

That "complex style of language" is called "poetry".

 

His plays are poetic, but it's not poetry; poetry doesn't involve dialogue. The mark of a good poem is that you've got to read it over and over again to get the full meaning. So why did he write his plays using this kind of complex language that was difficult for even his educated peers to understand without reading it on paper slowly and repeatedly? Using awe4one's argument, isn't his doing this counterproductive to the nature of a play? A play is much like a movie in that you've got a limited amount of time to absorb it and it's hard to go back and read a passage several times to understand it. So didn't he therefore fail as a playright since much of his meaning was hidden behind dialogue too complex to interpret in real time?

[drice6900]

Ah well, there is still The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Great story, great action, great production, and hey! great literature

 

- D.

 

Not quite, since many are already comparing the two trilogies. And since the conversation had turned to comparing the Matrix to great literature ( gasp, choke), it was only fair to mention LOTR.

 

Now to keep on topic - IMHO, the Matrix was a good movie, but never good enough to be turned into a trilogy in the first place. What positive legacy it might have had in now weighed down by these two terrible, ponderous, jumbled and undecipherable boat anchors. Obviously the W. Brothers started believing their own press, and the studio just let them be when they should have been there saying: "WTF?"

 

- D.

 

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

Okay since this thread already has spoilers in it, there's one thing I want to ask the people who have seen the movie already....

 

Doesn't the final battle sequence seem like it was taken straight out of DragonBall Z? Hehe...I couldn't help thinking that when they were fighting in the air and all that other nonsense.

[fantastic_four]

Doesn't the final battle sequence seem like it was taken straight out of DragonBall Z? Hehe...I couldn't help thinking that when they were fighting in the air and all that other nonsense.

 

Reminds me more of Superman versus another Kryptonian! But I've never watched Dragonball so I dunno.

[Darthdiesel]

Okay since this thread already has spoilers in it, there's one thing I want to ask the people who have seen the movie already....

 

Doesn't the final battle sequence seem like it was taken straight out of DragonBall Z? Hehe...I couldn't help thinking that when they were fighting in the air and all that other nonsense.

 

KAMEHAMEHAMEHAAAA!

[fantastic_four]

Smith kept asking her a question that was something like "if you're the all-knowing Oracle, and you know what's going to happen, why didn't you know that I was going to come here?" So...why did she stay there and let him take her over? And why did the Architect say to her at the end, "that was an awful risk you took"?

 

I haven't figured this out either

 

I thought about it a bit and figured a few more things out. One is that Smith never had Neo superpowers until he took over the Oracle, so that one Smith that fought him was the one who had taken her over. I knew that before but didn't want to give it away, but since nobody's interested in discussing it, I'll just do a monologue and see if anyone joins in.

 

What occurred to me today is that I think it's clear that the Oracle knew Smith was going to take her over because Smith pointed out the fact that he had done it to her before. He didn't have superpowers until he took her over, and at the end while he was standing over Neo in the pit he created when he flew Neo to the ground at high speed, he pointed out the fact that he had seen this all before in a previous reboot of the Matrix, and that he had been standing right there in that same spot. This infers that he had taken over the Oracle before and used her power to beat Neo before.

 

The core thing I haven't figured out is what exactly was different in this iteration of the Matrix to convince the computer not to wipe out Zion again as the Architect said he had done five previous times before. Why did he make the peace? He inferred that the Oracle is the one who guided them towards peace when he said "that was a dangerous game you played. How long do you think this peace of yours will last?" But what exactly did she do differently this time?

[valiantman]

But what exactly did she do differently this time?

Someone pointed out that Smith's dialogue at the end wasn't Smith's style.

He said, "I'm supposed to say... this... and you're supposed to say... that."

He also referred to "Mr. Anderson" as "Neo"... which he would never do.

Only the Oracle talked to Neo like that...

(like when Neo meets the Oracle in the first movie, among others)

 

It appears that the Oracle turned herself into a "virus" that could be triggered inside Smith

by the same events she'd seen in the past. When she "took over", things were

different than they'd been before.

She also mentioned that (this time) she couldn't see past the choice she

would make because even she didn't understand it.

 

On another note, was "the face" that talked to Neo in the machine city

the face of the Architect?

 

If the "peace" allows any human who wants to be freed from the matrix

to be freed... then wouldn't the "already freed humans" (Zionites) immediately

"go into all the (matrix) world and preach the gospel"?

[fantastic_four]

Someone pointed out that Smith's dialogue at the end wasn't Smith's style.

He said, "I'm supposed to say... this... and you're supposed to say... that."

He also referred to "Mr. Anderson" as "Neo"... which he would never do.

Only the Oracle talked to Neo like that...

(like when Neo meets the Oracle in the first movie, among others)

 

It appears that the Oracle turned herself into a "virus" that could be triggered inside Smith

by the same events she'd seen in the past. When she "took over", things were

different than they'd been before.

She also mentioned that (this time) she couldn't see past the choice she

would make because even she didn't understand it.

 

That's as good an explanation as my friends or I have come up with...someone I know suggested also that since Smith absorbs the knowledge and abilities of the people he copies himself over, that he was beginning to take on the Oracle's ability to "see the future," which I still don't think is what she does. Since my last post, I realized that Smith wasn't seeing the past--a previous iteration of the matrix--because he had just become an exile apart from the "source" in this iteration of the matrix, so his actions should have been different this time.

 

I think I'm down to only having 3 or 4 hanging questions I haven't figured out entirely, which is down significantly from the 2 or 3 dozen I had immediately after seeing Revolutions...and Smith's question about his being in that pit and his exact relationship with the Oracle is one of my hanging questions. I think there are hints that the Oracle may have been the one to bring Smith back into existence after Neo killed him in the first film; her motive for doing it would have been to give Neo his bargaining chip against the Source to force a peace. But I'm not sure of that at all.

 

 

On another note, was "the face" that talked to Neo in the machine city

the face of the Architect?

 

Sort of, although I figure the Architect is a separate program from the "source." The face was that of the "source," or what Neo also referred to as the "machine mainframe."

 

 

If the "peace" allows any human who wants to be freed from the matrix

to be freed... then wouldn't the "already freed humans" (Zionites) immediately

"go into all the (matrix) world and preach the gospel"?

 

I believe that would break the peace, which is likely to be one of the things the Architect had in mind when he asked the Oracle how long she thought this peace could last.

 

I figure the Oracle is hoping that if humans and machines can work together in peace, they can work to get rid of the electromagnetic barrier which blocks the sun out. The little girl Sati created a sun in the matrix at the end of the film in honor of Neo, who was a computer program raised in a human's body fighting for both machines and humans simultaneously (although he wasn't consciously aware he was fighting for computers, his programming led him to that). Remember that Sati is the daughter of that guy who is the "power plant manager," which means he oversees the production of energy from humans in the pods...I suspect she inherited her father's thoughts about alternative power sources to humans and created the sun as a symbol of Neo's efforts to create a peace which could eventually lead to them both benefitting from sunlight again.

 

The Animatrix revealed that humans started the war, not the machines...which means the Source and the Architect really are just trying to protect their race every time they wiped Zion out. I suspect the Architect is open to the idea of peace, but that he doesn't think it's realistic due to the instability of human emotion.