A serious look at The Matrix Reloaded

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

If you thought Matrix:Reloaded was horrible, then chances are you didn't like The Matrix and you wouldn't be expected to enjoy a continuation and I pity you. I cleary did enjoy both movies very much, so assuming (as you point out is how to make an ass out of yourself) that I am excusing a movie for being part 2 of 3 is totally inaccurate. I'm not a sheep, I've spent considerable time thinking over both movies and I enjoy it more and more as I do so and can't wait for the conclusion. And as for my assumption from the trailer, when the Oracle's bodyguard is shown fighting Neo and saying "I protect that which matters most" I think it's fairly safe to say he is quite involved with the next movie.

Ever since this discussion began, you've argued that the problems in #2 will be settled in #3. So, YES, you are excusing it because it is 2 of 3, regardless of the point you claim to be making.

 

And hey, I did enjoy the first one. You assumed incorrectly. You really do enjoy doing that.

 

And, you can think about these movies all day long if you want, and claim that doesn't make you a sheep. Go ahead and think about them now. The point is, was, and always will be that your $9 for movie #3 was as good as spent the second you bought a ticket for #2.

[Guest DrTom]

Having now seen Reloaded twice, I can say that I liked it better the second time. It's still not quite on the level of the first one, but I think it's a solid movie in its own right. Considering that I liked part 2, I will indeed be seeing Revolutions when it comes out in six months.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

For brain dead people dying, I think the people in vegetative states who can survive without life support till they die of old age speak against that idea.

Vegetative states are not brain dead states. Catatonics can receive stimulus, as can those who are comatose.

[Guest Nanks]

I'm not arguing that problems in #2 will be fixed in #3. What I am saying is that unanswered questions from #2 will be answered in #3, keep in mind that, in actuality, #2 and #3 are 1 movie cut in half. Perhaps you would have preferred to sit in the cinema for 5 hours. Of course it's a ploy to milk twice the amount of money out of the movie, oh no, $AUS11 more dollars, I'd better start saving.... What about Lord of the Rings?? Sure, you can go and read the book to find out what happens, but if not, it's the same deal, to find out the ending, you've gotta cough up for another movie ticket at the end of the year. To be honest, people presuming to outthink the Wachowskis, who are certified geniuses, can get over themselves. They will not leave huge gaps in their lives' biggest work. Have faith.

[Guest Eric the Eagle]

I thought the movie was entertaining - not earthshatteringly so, but well worth the money and time spent. I'd see it again, if someone suggested we go, but probably not of my own accord.

 

Personally, I went to see an action movie and got what I wanted. I'll see the next one, too. I'm not sure I'll get around to seeing it in theaters (I very rarely do), but I'll see it.

 

That being said, there were a couple of flaws - not enough for me to dislike the movie, but enough to notice it.

 

They can pretty much be summed up as "too much of a good thing", notable in both the fights and the plot. Many of the fights were great (apart from the formentioned phantom blocks and the fact that I have a hard time buying Keanu Reeves as an ass-kicker...), but went on past the point where they should have ended - the first fight with Smith, despite all the brilliant things done, is a prime example of this. Instead of "Oh my God! Even more of him!", you end up thinking "How long is the idiot going to keep fighting the lot of these" - which isn't a good thing.

 

The same happened with the characters - [The first time Neo debates freedom of will with a program, it's damn good. The second, they're getting new things said and advancing ideas.

 

The fifth, and you get the feeling you've seen this before.

 

That being said, I really did like the movie. Morpheus and Link are a damn sight cooler than Trinity and Neo, though...

 

Oh, yeah - the Merovingian was cool, but Persephone (besides the obvious... assets...) so totally blew him away that it wasn't even funny.

[Guest Madmartigan21]

I'm not arguing that problems in #2 will be fixed in #3.  What I am saying is that unanswered questions from #2 will be answered in #3, keep in mind that, in actuality, #2 and #3 are 1 movie cut in half.  Perhaps you would have preferred to sit in the cinema for 5 hours.  Of course it's a ploy to milk twice the amount of money out of the movie, oh no, $AUS11 more dollars, I'd better start saving....  What about Lord of the Rings??  Sure, you can go and read the book to find out what happens, but if not, it's the same deal, to find out the ending, you've gotta cough up for another movie ticket at the end of the year.  To be honest, people presuming to outthink the Wachowskis, who are certified geniuses, can get over themselves.  They will not leave huge gaps in their lives' biggest work.  Have faith.

Here's the problem I have with the argument of comparing the Matrix to other trilogies. All the rest have something going for them that the Matrix doesn't. Each and every Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Lord of the Rings movie can be taken as a STAND ALONE movie. You can watch anyone of them and not have to question plot holes that MIGHT be cleared up in the next movie. Seeing the first movie will most likely enhance the viewing pleasure of the second one. But HAVING to see the third movie should NOT be REQUIRED to enjoy the second. It just isn't fair.

 

Empire Strikes Back, BttF 1 and 2, LotR: TheFellowship of the Ring andThe Two Towers all have UNRESOLVED ENDINGS. But you can watch anyone of them and fully understand THAT PARTICULAR movie. Surely having seen the previous one and seeing the next one will add to your enjoyment , but its not necessary in order to understand everything of importance. For instance all of the times that history repeats itself in BttF 2 are fun to watch, but if you hadn't seen the first and you never see part 3, you WON'T be left scratching your head after part 2 because you didn't get it.

 

The Matrix:Reloaded does something completely different. Instead of just having an unresolved ending, it has NUMEROUS unresolved PLOT POINTS, that the movie doesn't address. You leave the theater asking yourself, "Why did that happen? And why did they do this?" As opposed to leaving the theater after a BttF, or LotR, or Star Wars movie, when you simply say "I can't wait to see what happens next!"

 

Reloaded can't stand on its own two feet on any level. There just isn't an excuse for that.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

Reloaded can't stand on its own two feet on any level. There just isn't an excuse for that.

Madmartigan... YOU DA MAN!!!

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

Someone understands!!! Thank God.

That's exactly it. Making arguments that this will be explained in the next movie is bad story telling. Some element shouldn't be introduced just for the sake of introducing it because it will be important later. Elements need to be introduced within the context of the story. Otherwise they're tacked on and silly. I see it all over the place in this movie.

 

*reads what I just wrote*

That looks really clumsy, but I can't think enough to fix it right now

 

(tiredness = 1/eloqution)

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

The movie is not a stand alone! It says "To be concluded" at the end!

[Guest SP-1]

How in the hell is it bad storytelling? Because it doesn't give you everything you want when you want it? It's a BASIC THREE ACT STRUCTURE. YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE THIRD ACT YET. IT'S REALLY JUST THAT SIMPLE. That's not bad storytelling, that's EXCEPTIONAL storytelling in my book. It would have been stupid to blow everything in RELOADED.

 

Why?

 

BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR REVOLUTIONS. You don't give it all away in Act 3.

 

Act I

Establish Characters

 

Act II

Enter the problem

 

Act III

SOLVE THE PROBLEM

 

It's simple. No, really, it is.

[Guest Madmartigan21]

How in the hell is it bad storytelling?  Because it doesn't give you everything you want when you want it?  It's a BASIC THREE ACT STRUCTURE.  YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE THIRD ACT YET.  IT'S REALLY JUST THAT SIMPLE.  That's not bad storytelling, that's EXCEPTIONAL storytelling in my book.  It would have been stupid to blow everything in RELOADED.

 

Why?

 

BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR REVOLUTIONS.  You don't give it all away in Act 3.

 

Act I

Establish Characters

 

Act II

Enter the problem

 

Act III

SOLVE THE PROBLEM

 

It's simple.  No, really, it is.

No. It's bad because it gives you NOTHING you want.

 

The movie is not a stand alone! It says "To be concluded" at the end!

 

Please excuse me if I'm really rude for a second, but NO FUCKING SHIT! Really? I wonder where they got that from.

 

At the end of BttF Part 2, when Doc Brown accidentally goes back in time alone and the Wester Union guy delivers the letter to Marty and he runs to the 1950's Doc Brown for help, THAT'S good storytelling as far as setting up the third part of trilogy goes. They set up a legitimate reason within the context of the story to neccesitate furthing the story. But NONE of the earlier events are left just dangling in the wind. They delivered a movie that on its OWN works AND needs a sequel to finish the story. The plot is constantly moving forward. Part 3 wasn't needed to EXPLAIN the first two parts. No backtracking was needed to clear up inconsistencies. It was needed only to finish the story. There's a big difference. As a result Part 2 is never frustrating to watch on any level. Where as Reloaded basically says "Fuck you, we haven't finished yet."

 

Like BttF, the same thing can be said for the Star Wars and LotR trilogies. At the end of Empire when Luke finds out Vader is his father, you're like, " HOLY SHIT! Where are they going to go from here?" You're mind isn't boggled by a bunch of bullshit that doesn't make sense by itself. As a result Jedi is able to march on without a bunch of retcon nonsense.

 

At the end of the second part of all three above mentioned trilogies the heroes have yet to fully complete their respective tasks. That in and of itself , assuming you enjoy the movies, is enough to drive the story to require a third part AND your desire to see that third part. They don't have to fuck with the audience by pulling bait and switch bullshit. They don't say, "You better see the next one or you won't fully enjoy OR understand this one." They make you WANT to see the third part as opposed to feeling as though you HAVE to see the third part. Again, there's a BIG difference here.

 

Perhaps the issue has been made clearer now.

[Guest the pinjockey]

But this has the big Holy Shit moment in the end by telling you that there have been six previous iterations of the one, and that the city they have built up through the first two movies has been built before and has been destroyed before. And it ends on them showing Neo making the choice to go with what they've built instead of taking the 23 people and rebuilding Zion. So you get the big "Luke, I am your father" Holy shit moment and part 3 is the reaction and consequences of the revelation.

[Guest Madmartigan21]

But this has the big Holy Shit moment in the end by telling you that there have been six previous iterations of the one, and that the city they have built up through the first two movies has been built before and has been destroyed before.  And it ends on them showing Neo making the choice to go with what they've built instead of taking the 23 people and rebuilding Zion.  So you get the big "Luke, I am your father" Holy shit moment and part 3 is the reaction and consequences of the revelation.

You missed the point.

 

There's still so much more unresolved that it's not even funny.

 

At the end of the second part of BttF, SW, and LotR, the heroes have all overcome a specific task for THAT movie. Marty and Doc fix the contitnuity of their timeline so that 1985 Hill Valley isn't a world controlled by Biff. Leia, Chewbacca and the droids are rescued. But they still haven't resolved their overall tasks, which is what neccisiates the third and final installments. Marty still has to find a way to get back to his time. Luke and Co still have to defeat the Empire. You WANT to see the movies to see how those things will be accomplished. To see how the heroes finally save the day. You don't NEED to see them to have the movie you just watched explained to you. It was a good movie that you both enjoyed and understood and yet it still left you wanting more.

 

Reloaded accomplished NOTHING on its own. The heroes do NOTHING of consequence. Nothing they do mattered within the context of JUST reloaded. And THEN they give you a holy shit moment? They didn't earn it. The entire movie exists only to give you that holy shit moment. The way Reloaded is constructed that moment could have existed within the first 40 minutes and the rest could have played out as a slightly condensed version of Revolutions. I say only slightly because a good portion of Revolutions will have to explain Reloaded, and now it wouldn't be necessary, because all that other pointless bullshit could have been skipped.

 

Where as Jedi, BttF 3 LotR umm... 3 (I forget the proper title) continue and finish their respective stories without having to explain numerous unresolved plot points from there predecessors.

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

One of the big problems I see in part 2 of this trilogy is that you don't introduce an element early in a story for no other reason than that it will come into play later. If you are going to introduce something, like for example, the Oracle's guardian, you need to write it into the story in a significant and meaningful way. Dispite what some may say about that particular fight sequence, it could have been removed and the story would have not suffered at all.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

One of the big problems I see in part 2 of this trilogy is that you don't introduce an element early in a story for no other reason than that it will come into play later. If you are going to introduce something, like for example, the Oracle's guardian, you need to write it into the story in a significant and meaningful way. Dispite what some may say about that particular fight sequence, it could have been removed and the story would have not suffered at all.

Don't you see? It will all be revealed in the next movie. It's only obvious that you need to waste another 2+ hours of your life this fall so that you'll understand why you wasted 2+ hours of your life last month. Duh! Seriously! What the hell is wrong with all you people who think that movies need to be entertaining?! Any moron knows that the only reason anybody goes to see movies is so they can be force-fed asanine head-scratchers with no explanation for 6 months, if even at all. Seriously, Riot, what the hell are you smoking?!

[Guest the pinjockey]

But this has the big Holy Shit moment in the end by telling you that there have been six previous iterations of the one, and that the city they have built up through the first two movies has been built before and has been destroyed before.  And it ends on them showing Neo making the choice to go with what they've built instead of taking the 23 people and rebuilding Zion.  So you get the big "Luke, I am your father" Holy shit moment and part 3 is the reaction and consequences of the revelation.

You missed the point.

 

There's still so much more unresolved that it's not even funny.

 

At the end of the second part of BttF, SW, and LotR, the heroes have all overcome a specific task for THAT movie. Marty and Doc fix the contitnuity of their timeline so that 1985 Hill Valley isn't a world controlled by Biff. Leia, Chewbacca and the droids are rescued. But they still haven't resolved their overall tasks, which is what neccisiates the third and final installments.

But they did have a self contained storyline for Reloaded

 

First you have the Trininty dying angle.

Then you also have the quest to find the keymaker and gain access to the mainframe.

 

Now whether you think those were decent storylines is a whole nother story, but to me those were self-contained.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

No. It's bad because it gives you NOTHING you want.

No, it gives you nothing YOU want.

 

As a result Part 2 is never frustrating to watch on any level. Where as Reloaded basically says "Fuck you, we haven't finished yet."

Well, they could have sat its audience down for 5 hours... which is basically what this is. Both parts were filmed simultaneously. This is really one, 5 hour movie... but they don't want people to sit that long and they want to make more money.

 

There's still so much more unresolved that it's not even funny.

I want a point-by-point list of every unresolved issue, then.

 

Reloaded accomplished NOTHING on its own. The heroes do NOTHING of consequence. Nothing they do mattered within the context of JUST reloaded.

 

One of the big problems I see in part 2 of this trilogy is that you don't introduce an element early in a story for no other reason than that it will come into play later.

Pinjockey takes care of this one. Trinity and the Keymaker angles were the accomplishments of Reloaded. Everything you complain about is the overarching plot of the trilogy.

 

Don't you see? It will all be revealed in the next movie. It's only obvious that you need to waste another 2+ hours of your life this fall so that you'll understand why you wasted 2+ hours of your life last month. Duh! Seriously! What the hell is wrong with all you people who think that movies need to be entertaining?! Any moron knows that the only reason anybody goes to see movies is so they can be force-fed asanine head-scratchers with no explanation for 6 months, if even at all. Seriously, Riot, what the hell are you smoking?!

Why are you wasting all your time trying to convince me it wasn't entertaining? I was entertained... the plot made sense and the trilogy works for me. I don't see how you must completely analyze every detail in order to say there was no entertainment value.

[Guest Powerplay]

You missed the point. 

 

There's still so much more unresolved that it's not even funny. 

 

At the end of the second part of BttF, SW, and LotR, the heroes have all overcome a specific task for THAT movie.  Marty and Doc fix the contitnuity of their timeline so that 1985  Hill Valley isn't a world controlled by Biff.  Leia, Chewbacca and the droids are rescued.  But they still haven't resolved their overall tasks, which is what neccisiates the third and final installments.  Marty still has to find a way to get back to his time.  Luke and Co still have to defeat the Empire.  You WANT to see the movies to see how those things will be accomplished.  To see how the heroes finally save the day.  You don't NEED to see them to have the movie you just watched explained to you.  It was a good movie that you both enjoyed and understood and yet it still left you wanting more.

 

Reloaded accomplished NOTHING on its own.  The heroes do NOTHING of consequence.  Nothing they do mattered within the context of JUST reloaded.  And THEN they give you a holy shit moment?  They didn't earn it.  The entire movie exists only to give you that holy shit moment.  The way Reloaded is constructed that moment could have existed within the first 40 minutes and the rest could have played out as a slightly condensed version of Revolutions.  I say only slightly because a good portion of Revolutions will have to explain Reloaded, and now it wouldn't be necessary, because all that other pointless bullshit could have been skipped. 

 

Where as Jedi, BttF 3 LotR umm... 3 (I forget the proper title) continue and finish their respective stories without having to explain numerous unresolved plot points from there predecessors.

 

No, you missed the point. They DID do something. They fulfilled the prophecy. That's a BIG ACCOMPLISHMENT AND IT IS SOMETHING OF MASSIVE CONSEQUENCE. I mean, that's like saying "Pfft. They didn't do anything in A New Hope besides destroy the Death Star." The first movie is about gaining the means to fulfil the prophecy. We see that with Morpheous getting Neo and showing him that he is the one. The second is about actually fulfilling what they think is the prophecy, which is integral to the storyline. It's just as big as Defending Helms Deep. And to ask, what did The Empire Strikes Back do, besides give us a "Holy Shit Moment" at the end that the Matrix didn't? What did it resolve? Because I honestly don't remember ANYTHING being resolved in that movie, yet I like it the best out of all the Star Wars movies. Seriously, that whole argument is bullshit because Empire only gave us stuff to look forwards to in the next movie, just like Reloaded did.

 

And what bullshit doesn't stand alone? Please, give EXAMPLES rather than just ranting on how the movie sucks. Otherwise you lack any credibility.

 

No. It's bad because it gives you NOTHING you want.

 

That's the basic format for EVERY TRILOGY OUT THERE. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Christ, just about everything.

 

At the end of BttF Part 2, when Doc Brown accidentally goes back in time alone and the Wester Union guy delivers the letter to Marty and he runs to the 1950's Doc Brown for help, THAT'S good storytelling as far as setting up the third part of trilogy goes. They set up a legitimate reason within the context of the story to neccesitate furthing the story. But NONE of the earlier events are left just dangling in the wind. They delivered a movie that on its OWN works AND needs a sequel to finish the story. The plot is constantly moving forward. Part 3 wasn't needed to EXPLAIN the first two parts. No backtracking was needed to clear up inconsistencies. It was needed only to finish the story. There's a big difference. As a result Part 2 is never frustrating to watch on any level. Where as Reloaded basically says "Fuck you, we haven't finished yet."

 

... And Reloaded didn't do this where? Explain how Reloaded didn't do this shit, otherwise I fail to see your argument. It's easy to say "It didn't do this" without explaining how.

 

A few other things to be addressed.

 

In relation to the former, if the Oracle is simply in place to get Neo to the Architect, and she knows that the humans will be destroyed, why does she care if they are open to attack?

 

Wow... here I go again, thinking too much.

 

Or just overanalyzing way way too much to the point of missing the answer completely. Why would she care if they were attacked? Would you believe someone trying to tell you how to defeat your oppressors if she didn't give a shit about you living or dying? The fact is that they trust her more because she "seems" to actually care about them. Would you trust your mother or some asshole off the street who just gave you the finger and said you are "I really don't care if you live or die" more? The more she seems sympathetic to her plight, so they are willing to trust her more, and therefore more willing to put their lives on the line for what she says because they honestly believe that she will not put them in harm's way. I thought that was a pretty obvious thing for you not to see, but meh.

 

On the question before it:

 

What was Oracle hiding from? All of the things that were trying to get her (the outcasts) were around at the time of the first movie. Did they, in the 6 months between #1 and #2, just decide that they wanted to kill the oracle?

 

It's pretty easy, as well. Think about it: The Oracle can't do any harm to the system without the One. The prophecy that she tells the rebel humans can't come to fruition without it, and therefore the system is safe and the outcasts that actually enjoy being in the system (The Merovignian and quite possibly others with great power) have nothing to worry about. But that changes when Neo arrives. Now the prophecy CAN be fulfilled and the Oracle is the only one who knows how to do it. So which way would YOU rather save the system so that you can lord over your power: Defeat the One, a man who knows dozens of fightning techniques and can mold the matrix to his will, or kill the Oracle, a wise yet weak program that wouldn't have a chance against your incredibly hard to kill (Silver Bullets, anyone?) thugs? So the Oracle forsaw that she needed to have protection. Enter the Guardian as a totally logically solution to the problem.

 

Okay, I'll number the next ones to make it easier for some of you in this thread because the guy didn't take the time to press "Return" on the keyboard:

 

1) As for the guardian, why does he need to check if Neo is who he says he is when the Oracle would already know that? If, on the other hand, he takes this step to guard the Oracle, why was this step absent in the first movie?

2) For brain dead people dying, I think the people in vegetative states who can survive without life support till they die of old age speak against that idea.

3)As for Neo's fluctuating abilities, He appears to be able to stop bullets with no problem, and fly more or less at will. From that I am hearing that he cannot accept being able to pull a sai from the wall unless it is a life threatening situation, and the blood coming from his hand when blocking a sword is to illustrate that he cannot accept this whole idea yet. Those thoughts don't seem to mesh cleanly for me.

4)For saving trinity, it was said that she could accept Neo's hand diving into her, but she couldn't accept the bullet dissolving. The matrix would have stopped feeding her brain the stimuli telling her that she had a mortal wound, and a bit of lead in her body. The question isn't only about what she perceives to be the case, but also what the matrix is telling her is the case. I would make the point that the idea of "the one" is being able to make the leap on every level, cognitively to instinctually that what the matrix is telling you isn't reality, and "the one" is therefore able to ignore this stimulus and alter the surroundings.

 

1) A few reasons, actually. I'm sure the Matrix could copy Neo's face, body, voice, and other things with little problem. Hell, they could probably copy his personality close enough so that only the Oracle could tell it wasn't Neo. So "Neo" could show up at a point only to turn into an agent and kill the Oracle once they brought him to her. But an Agent couldn't possibly fight like Neo. Neo can fight faster, harder, and better than anyone else, and that's one thing that is ENTIRELY UNIQUE to him. It's his fingerprint, and that's how the Guardian can be totally sure that it's Neo and not a system or exile made "Doppleganger".

 

2) The problem is getting them through the first few months, though. Babies with little to no physical and mental stimulation weaken and eventually die. This is pretty much a fact they found out with orphanage babies: The children would get little to no physical stimulation and very little emotional or mental stimulation and they would often die within a few months of being there. So that's pretty much wrong.

 

3) Do you forget that Neo was raised and taught that there are limits what he can do for oh, around 25 years? No matter what you say, you can't unteach in 6 months what has been reality for 25 or so years. When Neo learned when he was young what to do when he was attacked, was it "Mold reality to you wishes" or "Punch him"? The latter. So when he is attacked, he can pull out new tricks (Stopping bullets, Pulling Sais off the wall, doing Kung Fu), but he goes with what his natural instincts tell him: FIGHT BACK. Same with the flight: You say "Well he can do this, so why not this" but you fail to realize that flight is pretty puny to what he can really do. Why doesn't he go all Nightcrawler and say "Poof, I'm there!" That's totally within his powers. But he flies because he's been taught the only way to go from point A to point B is NOT to instantaneously disappear and appear at the destination, but to actually travel the distance. Flight is only a logical extension of running there or just walking there. He doesn't accept the idea yet, and therefore he can't do everything you so wish. I mean, really, what more did you want him to do? I have to say, not much must mesh with your odd thought process.

 

4)I'm not really sure I see your point here. You don't put it all too clearly, either. I'm guessing you are saying that Neo should have just healed her there right there? Arguably so, but you don't really put the point across well.

 

One of the big problems I see in part 2 of this trilogy is that you don't introduce an element early in a story for no other reason than that it will come into play later. If you are going to introduce something, like for example, the Oracle's guardian, you need to write it into the story in a significant and meaningful way. Dispite what some may say about that particular fight sequence, it could have been removed and the story would have not suffered at all.

 

Because yes, the entire credibility of the movie was destroyed in that little fight scene. All my faith in the directors and the producers and hell, the entire film company to deliver the movie was killed when I saw that 2-3 minute (Was it even that long? Oh, no matter) scene. The whole illusion of the matrix, the incredible plot, the myth of the one, all that was anhillated because they just had to add a small fight scene that served both a purpose (It showed that the Oracle is wanted by very dangerous people which necessitates such a skilled bodyguard) and brought about a character that may serve a later, important purpose in the next movie. DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!

 

That comment there just typifies the pettiness of the argument that we are presented with right now. Honestly, I've lost all faith in many of the detractors here. All you are trying to do is desperately justify your hate of a movie that many people like by saying it sucks and citing what all these other movies did right without explaining what they did wrong. They did basically everything that you do in a good sequel and put it into an entertaining package with a plot that appeals to a more adult crowd. To ask, did you guys like the first movie, or even the concept of the Matrix? You show this unnatural hatred for this thing like it somehow ruined your whole life in some magical, mystical way. Please, you are just embarrassing yourselves now.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

Dear Lord. There was so much wrong with that last one, I couldn't possibly cite all of it. So, I'll just pick out a few of my favorites.

 

You missed the point. 

 

There's still so much more unresolved that it's not even funny. 

 

At the end of the second part of BttF, SW, and LotR, the heroes have all overcome a specific task for THAT movie.  Marty and Doc fix the contitnuity of their timeline so that 1985  Hill Valley isn't a world controlled by Biff.  Leia, Chewbacca and the droids are rescued.  But they still haven't resolved their overall tasks, which is what neccisiates the third and final installments.  Marty still has to find a way to get back to his time.  Luke and Co still have to defeat the Empire.  You WANT to see the movies to see how those things will be accomplished.  To see how the heroes finally save the day.  You don't NEED to see them to have the movie you just watched explained to you.  It was a good movie that you both enjoyed and understood and yet it still left you wanting more.

 

Reloaded accomplished NOTHING on its own.  The heroes do NOTHING of consequence.  Nothing they do mattered within the context of JUST reloaded.  And THEN they give you a holy shit moment?  They didn't earn it.  The entire movie exists only to give you that holy shit moment.  The way Reloaded is constructed that moment could have existed within the first 40 minutes and the rest could have played out as a slightly condensed version of Revolutions.  I say only slightly because a good portion of Revolutions will have to explain Reloaded, and now it wouldn't be necessary, because all that other pointless bullshit could have been skipped. 

 

Where as Jedi, BttF 3 LotR umm... 3 (I forget the proper title) continue and finish their respective stories without having to explain numerous unresolved plot points from there predecessors.

 

 

No, you missed the point.

Nice retort. No way has anyone used that one before.

 

That's the basic format for EVERY TRILOGY OUT THERE. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Christ, just about everything.

Did you just wake up for the week? There have been PLENTY of arguements saying the opposite. Did you read them? Any of them? Yeah, I didn't think so. This isn't even close to an accurate statement. Although, to be fair, I've never seen Christ 2, so I don't know how it relates to Christ 3.

 

... And Reloaded didn't do this where? Explain how Reloaded didn't do this shit, otherwise I fail to see your argument. It's easy to say "It didn't do this" without explaining how.

You see. Once again, you have failed to comprehend the previous posts, and just pretended that they didn't happen. You can't do this. Not only does it make you sound like a moron, it squashes any form of a point/counterpoint debate.

 

In relation to the former, if the Oracle is simply in place to get Neo to the Architect, and she knows that the humans will be destroyed, why does she care if they are open to attack?

 

Wow... here I go again, thinking too much.

 

Or just overanalyzing way way too much to the point of missing the answer completely. Why would she care if they were attacked? Would you believe someone trying to tell you how to defeat your oppressors if she didn't give a shit about you living or dying? The fact is that they trust her more because she "seems" to actually care about them. Would you trust your mother or some asshole off the street who just gave you the finger and said you are "I really don't care if you live or die" more? The more she seems sympathetic to her plight, so they are willing to trust her more, and therefore more willing to put their lives on the line for what she says because they honestly believe that she will not put them in harm's way. I thought that was a pretty obvious thing for you not to see, but meh.

Now, we see how this guy can't really understand simple concepts. Dames asked a question, I asked for clarification on his point. Go back and read all the posts around this one. You may comment again once learning has occurred.

 

What was Oracle hiding from? All of the things that were trying to get her (the outcasts) were around at the time of the first movie. Did they, in the 6 months between #1 and #2, just decide that they wanted to kill the oracle?

 

It's pretty easy, as well. Think about it: The Oracle can't do any harm to the system without the One. The prophecy that she tells the rebel humans can't come to fruition without it, and therefore the system is safe and the outcasts that actually enjoy being in the system (The Merovignian and quite possibly others with great power) have nothing to worry about. But that changes when Neo arrives. Now the prophecy CAN be fulfilled and the Oracle is the only one who knows how to do it. So which way would YOU rather save the system so that you can lord over your power: Defeat the One, a man who knows dozens of fightning techniques and can mold the matrix to his will, or kill the Oracle, a wise yet weak program that wouldn't have a chance against your incredibly hard to kill (Silver Bullets, anyone?) thugs? So the Oracle forsaw that she needed to have protection. Enter the Guardian as a totally logically solution to the problem.

Right. You're not too quick are you? You see, the Oracle and the One are the problem. They obviously wouldn't really want to mess with the one (even though they do anyway), but why in the blue hell would the outcasts just wait around until the next One appeared before going after the Oracle? Seems like they could solve the whole problem by going after the Oracle all the time, and maybe attacking her while there's one less ass-kicker around trying to fight them back.

 

Okay, I'll number the next ones to make it easier for some of you in this thread because the guy didn't take the time to press "Return" on the keyboard:

1.) Some people in this thread are smart enough to recognize punctuation marks, and don't need numbers at the beginning of their sentences. 2.) But, since this seems to be a stumbling point for you, I'll accomodate for the rest of this post.

 

1) A few reasons, actually. I'm sure the Matrix could copy Neo's face, body, voice, and other things with little problem. Hell, they could probably copy his personality close enough so that only the Oracle could tell it wasn't Neo. So "Neo" could show up at a point only to turn into an agent and kill the Oracle once they brought him to her. But an Agent couldn't possibly fight like Neo. Neo can fight faster, harder, and better than anyone else, and that's one thing that is ENTIRELY UNIQUE to him. It's his fingerprint, and that's how the Guardian can be totally sure that it's Neo and not a system or exile made "Doppleganger".

3.) This WHOLE explanation, and you didn't even answer the question. Why is there no guardian in the first movie? They sure as hell knew what Neo would look and sound like.

 

3) Do you forget that Neo was raised and taught that there are limits what he can do for oh, around 25 years? No matter what you say, you can't unteach in 6 months what has been reality for 25 or so years. When Neo learned when he was young what to do when he was attacked, was it "Mold reality to you wishes" or "Punch him"? The latter. So when he is attacked, he can pull out new tricks (Stopping bullets, Pulling Sais off the wall, doing Kung Fu), but he goes with what his natural instincts tell him: FIGHT BACK. Same with the flight: You say "Well he can do this, so why not this" but you fail to realize that flight is pretty puny to what he can really do. Why doesn't he go all Nightcrawler and say "Poof, I'm there!" That's totally within his powers. But he flies because he's been taught the only way to go from point A to point B is NOT to instantaneously disappear and appear at the destination, but to actually travel the distance. Flight is only a logical extension of running there or just walking there. He doesn't accept the idea yet, and therefore he can't do everything you so wish. I mean, really, what more did you want him to do? I have to say, not much must mesh with your odd thought process.

4.) For a guy with so many hang-ups, Neo certainly had no problem making the transition from "I can stop bullets" to "I can leap inside of an agent program and cause it to be destroyed from the inside."

 

Because yes, the entire credibility of the movie was destroyed in that little fight scene. All my faith in the directors and the producers and hell, the entire film company to deliver the movie was killed when I saw that 2-3 minute (Was it even that long? Oh, no matter) scene. The whole illusion of the matrix, the incredible plot, the myth of the one, all that was anhillated because they just had to add a small fight scene that served both a purpose (It showed that the Oracle is wanted by very dangerous people which necessitates such a skilled bodyguard) and brought about a character that may serve a later, important purpose in the next movie. DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!

5.) For somebody who does a lot of whining about asking for examples, you'd think you'd appreciate one more. 6.) Oh, wait! 7.) I think I know. 8.) You don't actually know what the word "example" means, do you? 9.) You should go, look this word up in the dictionary, and again, you can reply once learning has occurred.

 

That comment there just typifies the pettiness of the argument that we are presented with right now. Honestly, I've lost all faith in many of the detractors here.

9.) Yes, I can see your point. 10.) Specific examples due tend to detract from an arguement.

 

All you are trying to do is desperately justify your hate of a movie that many people like by saying it sucks and citing what all these other movies did right without explaining what they did wrong.

11.) All you've done is desperately justify your love of a movie that many people think sucks without saying what it did right. 12.) And (being a broken record here) this whole threat STARTED by an in-depth look at what this movie did wrong. 13.) Seriously, before you post again, you should REALLY go back and read the rest of this thread. 14.) Please, you are just embarrassing yourself now.

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

Here's another example then. If the Architect is to be believed, then The Oracle serves the purpose of nurturing The One, and bringing him to light in order that the matrix does not collapse. If that is the case, why would ANYONE want to harm The Oracle? The rogue programs have proven that they can survive changing iterations of the matrix, so the cycle of the prophecy should not be a problem. On the other hand, if The Oracle cannot fulfill this purpose, the Architect tells us that the matrix will eventually collapse. Just like with Neo, the question is "can this character be killed or not?" If they can, then why not just do that. If they can't, then why keep trying?

[Guest SP-1]

Because up until now, Neo had always made the choice to go rebuild Zion. He was expected to do it again, and many of the enemies may not have that knowledge written into their programming. They simply may not know.

 

This time is drastically different, though. Neo's love for Trinity has caused several apparent choice differences than his previous incarnations. Her kiss revived him in THE MATRIX, which led to Agent Smith being freed and unplugged, so to speak. Here he chose the other door, warnings the Architect gave him be damned, and went to save her, tearing up everything in his path to get there in time.

 

In short, things are playing out differently this time. If they weren't there'd be no story. However, that doesn't mean that the programs, which have repeated these events several times over, know quite what to do, so they do what they do know: try and kill him.

 

Theories, yes. Hopefully the answers will be different and mind-blowing in REVOLUTIONS.

[Guest Powerplay]

Here's another example then. If the Architect is to be believed, then The Oracle serves the purpose of nurturing The One, and bringing him to light in order that the matrix does not collapse. If that is the case, why would ANYONE want to harm The Oracle? The rogue programs have proven that they can survive changing iterations of the matrix, so the cycle of the prophecy should not be a problem. On the other hand, if The Oracle cannot fulfill this purpose, the Architect tells us that the matrix will eventually collapse. Just like with Neo, the question is "can this character be killed or not?" If they can, then why not just do that. If they can't, then why keep trying?

Well, I can get a quick answer to this before I get a longer one out to Greg's.

 

An interesting point, for sure. The one thing I have a problem with is if the programs can survive multiple iterations of the Matrix. I'm only lead to believe that the Oracle and the Architect have carried over through all the versions of the Matrix. I don't remember this being mentioned in the movie, so if you can give me a quote or point out where it is, I'd be very glad. But for all appearances, it seems to me that when the Matrix is remade, everything is, including the programs. Therefore they wouldn't know that the Oracle is in actuality trying to save the Matrix from failing on itself, which makes the Guardian a necessary program to protect the fools from doing exactly what they don't want to do.

 

Now can the Oracle be killed or not? I would say not likely because the Matrix could always provide the proper safeguards against it (The Guardian and the keys to the backdoors), plus her prophetic vision makes it near impossible to catch her offguard. But do the others know this? No, so they don't know when to stop trying.

 

I actually love discussing something like this, because there aren't any real answers until you see the last movie. But I'm wondering what you really think about this, since you didn't really like the movie at all.

[Guest Powerplay]

Okay then, I'll try to be a little more civil than you were, so here we go.

 

Dear Lord.  There was so much wrong with that last one, I couldn't possibly cite all of it.  So, I'll just pick out a few of my favorites.

 

You missed the point. 

 

There's still so much more unresolved that it's not even funny. 

 

At the end of the second part of BttF, SW, and LotR, the heroes have all overcome a specific task for THAT movie.  Marty and Doc fix the contitnuity of their timeline so that 1985  Hill Valley isn't a world controlled by Biff.  Leia, Chewbacca and the droids are rescued.  But they still haven't resolved their overall tasks, which is what neccisiates the third and final installments.  Marty still has to find a way to get back to his time.  Luke and Co still have to defeat the Empire.  You WANT to see the movies to see how those things will be accomplished.  To see how the heroes finally save the day.  You don't NEED to see them to have the movie you just watched explained to you.  It was a good movie that you both enjoyed and understood and yet it still left you wanting more.

 

Reloaded accomplished NOTHING on its own.  The heroes do NOTHING of consequence.  Nothing they do mattered within the context of JUST reloaded.  And THEN they give you a holy shit moment?  They didn't earn it.  The entire movie exists only to give you that holy shit moment.  The way Reloaded is constructed that moment could have existed within the first 40 minutes and the rest could have played out as a slightly condensed version of Revolutions.  I say only slightly because a good portion of Revolutions will have to explain Reloaded, and now it wouldn't be necessary, because all that other pointless bullshit could have been skipped. 

 

Where as Jedi, BttF 3 LotR umm... 3 (I forget the proper title) continue and finish their respective stories without having to explain numerous unresolved plot points from there predecessors.

 

 

No, you missed the point.

Nice retort. No way has anyone used that one before.

Wow, you can take a sentence out of context to use it in a semi-clever comedic jab at me! I bow to you superior intellectual skills. But seriously, this doesn’t mean anything in the context of the argument. A decent flame, though.

 

Did you just wake up for the week? There have been PLENTY of arguements saying the opposite. Did you read them? Any of them? Yeah, I didn't think so. This isn't even close to an accurate statement. Although, to be fair, I've never seen Christ 2, so I don't know how it relates to Christ 3.

 

Specific examples to where BttF succeeds (The ending of #2 with Marty going back to see Doc in 1955) but doesn’t show where in this aspect The Matrix Reloaded failed. If you want his argument to work, you have to show both where the one movie succeeded and similarly how the Matrix Reloaded didn’t succeed. That is never presented. Now if you can present that, I’ll be glad to argue it.

 

You see. Once again, you have failed to comprehend the previous posts, and just pretended that they didn't happen. You can't do this. Not only does it make you sound like a moron, it squashes any form of a point/counterpoint debate.

 

Because it isn’t IN any other posts. He makes a great argument for why BttF is great, but his only argument for Reload failing is that “Where as Reloaded basically says "Fuck you, we haven't finished yet." I really fail to see how this constitutes a valid comparison on how the ending of Reloaded failed to make you want to see the Revolutions. It’s just an incomplete argument.

 

Now, we see how this guy can't really understand simple concepts. Dames asked a question, I asked for clarification on his point. Go back and read all the posts around this one. You may comment again once learning has occurred.

 

Okay, let's just have a quick review of what you and Dames Said:

 

Dames

Nick, in the first movie, the location of the Oracle was known to everyone who's mind had been freed. Many people had already gone to see the Oracle and everyone was welcome.

 

In Reloaded, one of the first things said was that the Oracle was in hiding and they were waiting for her to make contact with them. Because of the fact that she was in hiding, she needed some security in the form of the Guardian.

 

TheMadmanGreg

What was Oracle hiding from? All of the things that were trying to get her (the outcasts) were around at the time of the first movie. Did they, in the 6 months between #1 and #2, just decide that they wanted to kill the oracle?

 

The only way I can see around this is that Smith is the new threat, and all the outcasts, although claiming to be a threat, really are just pretending to be a threat in order to get Neo to finally reach his destiny.

 

Dames

With the machines getting closer to Zion and the humans in more trouble than ever before, one can assume that the Oracle didn't want to expose herself too openly and allow humans to be susceptable to attack. However, now knowing that the Oracle is a program, it's possible that her disappearance was a ruse on the part of the Matrix itself.

 

TheMadmanGreg

Dames, you know I hate going around in circles more than most people.... but: if the disappearance was a ruse, why does she need a bodyguard? And I won't buy in that it's part of the ruse. It's unnecessary.

 

Dames

Well, I strongly believe that it's the former and not the latter, but if it IS the latter, then yes, the Guardian would simply be a ruse to make The One or whoever believes that the Oracle is on their side and needs protection from the machines.

 

TheMadmanGreg

In relation to the former, if the Oracle is simply in place to get Neo to the Architect, and she knows that the humans will be destroyed, why does she care if they are open to attack?

 

Wow... here I go again, thinking too much.

 

He didn’t ask a question, he presented a statement and then you asked for a clarification. I’m trying to clarify it for you because he didn’t respond again. But anyways...

 

You asked if it weren’t a ruse, why should the Oracle care about the humans being drawn into the open to be attacked if they were just going to be destroyed in the end? That’s… an oddly worded question. I’m not exactly sure if that’s right, so I’ll answer it both ways, ruse and no ruse, then.

 

Ruse: If it were a ruse, she would have to look like she actually cares about them, no matter their fate, so that they would trust her. Therefore making so that they aren’t exposed to danger gives them a sense of security so that they’ll believe her more. Would you believe someone who, despite being in grave danger, made sure to meet you so that you would be as safe from danger as possible, or someone who didn’t seem to care about your safety when she called on your services? Again, it’s pretty simple to write this off as part of the act.

 

Not the Ruse: Well, I’m not sure if the question is really valid here. If it weren’t a ruse, then the Oracle is genuinely trying to help them end the Matrix, and therefore she would naturally want the rebels to be out of harm’s way. She wouldn’t believe that sending Neo to the Source would result in humanity’s demise, and that would meant that the Architect was trying to bluff Neo by making it seem like it was the Matrix’s intention that he arrived there and that he was really the person who would sentence humanity to bondage by allowing the Matrix to survive.

 

Right. You're not too quick are you? You see, the Oracle and the One are the problem. They obviously wouldn't really want to mess with the one (even though they do anyway), but why in the blue hell would the outcasts just wait around until the next One appeared before going after the Oracle? Seems like they could solve the whole problem by going after the Oracle all the time, and maybe attacking her while there's one less ass-kicker around trying to fight them back.

 

But they didn’t even believe that the One would ever come, so why even bother dispensing with the Oracle? If she can’t do anything to you and she’s likely never to be able to, why even waste the time and effort? It was a mistake on their part, and when the One finally arrived they must have realized it and are scrambling around trying to get her after she’s gone underground. Is it that hard to believe machines being too cocky after seeing the Merovignian?

 

1.) Some people in this thread are smart enough to recognize punctuation marks, and don't need numbers at the beginning of their sentences. 2.) But, since this seems to be a stumbling point for you, I'll accomodate for the rest of this post.

 

More flaming without points. Moving on.

 

3.) This WHOLE explanation, and you didn't even answer the question. Why is there no guardian in the first movie? They sure as hell knew what Neo would look and sound like.

 

Why would he be need in the first movie? No one thought of the Oracle as a threat, therefore he wasn't needed. When people began seeing her as a threat, the Guardian enters in as a bodyguard, hence the step is needed as proof of him being the One to protect against imitations. That a clear enough answer?

 

4.) For a guy with so many hang-ups, Neo certainly had no problem making the transition from "I can stop bullets" to "I can leap inside of an agent program and cause it to be destroyed from the inside."

 

The trick with Smith is slightly harder to explain away, I’ll admit. Maybe it’s because he totally accept that Smith is only a program because that’s what he’s been shown Smith really is. Or maybe Neo wants to mess with him just like Smith messed with Neo in the interrogation room, to make him feel the helplessness.

 

5.) For somebody who does a lot of whining about asking for examples, you'd think you'd appreciate one more. 6.) Oh, wait! 7.) I think I know. 8.) You don't actually know what the word "example" means, do you? 9.) You should go, look this word up in the dictionary, and again, you can reply once learning has occurred.

 

9.) Yes, I can see your point. 10.) Specific examples due tend to detract from an arguement.

 

11.) All you've done is desperately justify your love of a movie that many people think sucks without saying what it did right. 12.) And (being a broken record here) this whole threat STARTED by an in-depth look at what this movie did wrong. 13.) Seriously, before you post again, you should REALLY go back and read the rest of this thread. 14.) Please, you are just embarrassing yourself now.

 

A lot of needless flaming had to be sorted through (Like the above), but I did respond to the stuff that you did bring up.

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

The guards of the Keymaker were stated specifically as being from a previous version of the matrix. They were kept because they were difficult to kill. Then Persephone proceeded to shoot one with a silver bullet. In addition, the cycle of the current matrix was created by the Oracle, so through these cycles the Oracle, and the Architect, and all of the old rogue programs appear to remain the same.

 

I also wouldn't necessarily say that I entirely didn't like the movie. If that were the case, I wouldn't be so frustrated at what I see as plotholes and unexplored potential. I seriously dig Smith's character, and I'll see the sequel to see more of him, and in the hope that they will do something of some significance with the twins.

[Guest Powerplay]

Ah, okay then. I'm quite sorry I kinda went off on ya in my first big reply then.

 

Ah, yes, the Werewolves. I remembered it as older versions of guard programs or something along those lines. Well, if that's true then I'm guessing that they know the Matrix restarts sometimes, but doesn't really know what causes it. Maybe they think every time the One arrives he fails, and the system restarts as an fail-safe to correct the flaws that were caused by the previous one. Or for those two, maybe they don't really care and just would rather sit back and enjoy the high life. But at any rate, I'm willing to wager that they don't know that the Oracle is actually saving the system every time she sends the One to the Source. So they still don't know that the Oracle is actually trying to save the system.

 

But with the Keymaster... do they just have a backup of him since he was killed? Or did Smith, being the unexpected part, actually screw up the cycle by shooting him?

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

EXACTLY! Killing the Keymaster doesn't make sense to me either. And, if the programs are acting like this because they don't know better, then you have to think that the machines are witholding information from themselves. This really doesn't make any sense, since to a machine, holding back information can only increase the chance for error. The whole cause and effect thing that they went on and on and on about. Not enough information makes a faulty cause and an undesired effect. Like, if one of these programs managed to get lucky and kill Neo, well, the Architect would be pretty screwed.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

But they didn’t even believe that the One would ever come, so why even bother dispensing with the Oracle? If she can’t do anything to you and she’s likely never to be able to, why even waste the time and effort? It was a mistake on their part, and when the One finally arrived they must have realized it and are scrambling around trying to get her after she’s gone underground. Is it that hard to believe machines being too cocky after seeing the Merovignian?

 

Why would he be need in the first movie? No one thought of the Oracle as a threat, therefore he wasn't needed. When people began seeing her as a threat, the Guardian enters in as a bodyguard, hence the step is needed as proof of him being the One to protect against imitations. That a clear enough answer?

 

As I'm sure you recall now, yes, they all knew the One was coming. Therefore, waiting around until the current Neo came along before they went after the Oracle just isn't a logical step... for anybody, let alone a machine. Therefore, I feel that if the guardian wasn't necessary then, he wouldn't be necessary now, unless Smith is the reason for all this recent confusion. I mean, back in #1, all kinds of not-the-Ones were seeing here. An agent could just waltz on in looking like Spoonboy and off her.

 

Specific examples to where BttF succeeds (The ending of #2 with Marty going back to see Doc in 1955) but doesn’t show where in this aspect The Matrix Reloaded failed. If you want his argument to work, you have to show both where the one movie succeeded and similarly how the Matrix Reloaded didn’t succeed. That is never presented. Now if you can present that, I’ll be glad to argue it.

This one requires some independent thought. In BttF and Star Wars, the ending was open-ended, but there were no dangling plot-points. However, in Matrix 2, there were. Why the hell are there all these outcasts? Guardian? What the hell happened to Smith?

 

The trick with Smith is slightly harder to explain away, I’ll admit. Maybe it’s because he totally accept that Smith is only a program because that’s what he’s been shown Smith really is. Or maybe Neo wants to mess with him just like Smith messed with Neo in the interrogation room, to make him feel the helplessness.

 

But, I find it very hard to believe that Neo goes from nothing, to blowing up Smith inside out, to not being able to hold a door open for himself.

 

A lot of needless flaming had to be sorted through (Like the above), but I did respond to the stuff that you did bring up.

You and I carry a different definition of "needless."

[Guest Heel In Peril]

What an awesome thread!

 

Both sides are full of good shit! (A good thing.)

 

Some of us need to calm down though. Most of us have fair points in a fine discussion, but rarely is anyone perfect in their expression.

 

::Holds up sign "NANKS FEARS MADMAN"::

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

To lighten the mood and amuse:

 

"Abridged" script for the Matrix Reloaded

 

It's decent, up until the part with "The Explainer." From there on out, it's BRILLIANT.

[Guest SP-1]

You know, I had a wild idea as I watched it for the second time tonight.

 

What if the french guy and Persephone are old versions of The One and Trinity? It's a very loose idea dn not one even I lend any degree of seriousness too, but it interested me.