»Disapointed by some "fans" (and front page comment«

I just read the front page about revolution, and i am deeply disapointed by the arguments used there as well some used here.

The Trilogy was not meant to "ask questions - answer questions", if it is what u thought, u were wrong.
The Trilogy was not meant to be clear, they made it a DEEP puzzle since Matrix1 and as a fan you should have know that 2 and 3 were in the same path.

You can't answer YET to the many questions you have (Neo's power in real world, length of some fight, the title, ...) doesn't mean the plot is filled with holes. I can assure you that EVERY question you can have is ANSWERED one way or the other.
The fact is that you only have NUMEROUS keys to find the answers, and not the answers themselves.

Themes and names are first level, then you can confirm this by dialogues and actions, self references , then are the number/plate/tags and all bonus thing to be sure.

If after that u still don't get it, then you were asking the wrong questions. Watch and watch again thoose films and perhaps the light will come to you.

Does all this make MATRIX a bad film? HELL NO, it is different and i thnak them for that

right on

Wohooo! New front page!
...
:/

Dear, knnknn!

Quote:

Neo can stop sentinels, because he is a machine and has a wireless connection to the self-destruction of the sentinels. This makes Zion real and explains how he could be in the Matrix, while not jacked-in. Totally fine with me.

Quote:

Oracle: "The power of the One extends beyond this world. It reaches from here all the way back to where it came from: The Source."

sounds to me like Neo has a wireless connection to The Scource.
Where is the difference?

btw: I miss your "Have added it!"

Wireless connections require transmitters and receivers. Neo has a magical connection to the Source.

Hi guys! I am new here, and wanted to comment on the front page message. If I hadn't known that it is impossible, I would have thought, I wrote the text. I have the same feelings. I cannot get rid of the idea that something is missing at the revolutions movie

don't say i am stupid or stg like that, i may be a stupid but i am totally in love with the Matrix (and the movies) that's also why I am angry. I never expected to see all the answers but it made me think about it why they( the borthers) have put so many new characters in the 'reloaded' if they did not mean to explain who they are?

some explanations I've found on the internet are quite good but I never can be sure about them. ı am writing from Turkey, and we have our own movie forum, unfortunately in Turkish, I wished we were able to chat about the movies there!

See you later,
TheRain

Olschi wrote:

sounds to me like Neo has a wireless connection to The Scource. Where is the difference?

Yeah, it "sounds" like. But again you can discuss endlessly back and forth.

And the difference is, that no sentinel could go thru Neo with a mere wireless connection. And also the Oracle's words "you weren't ready to die" are too strange for a mere connection. ALso how does a connection allow Neo to destroy the sentinels? The source sends them, he destroys them? A bit too powerful.

Yes, that has puzzled me too. How COULD Neo destroy the sentenials? And yes, this argument could go back and forth, and since this is a no-theory zone, I have nothing more to say in this matter.
That is another example of a 'flaw' in the m3. I wish they didn't speak in riddles so that i could actually figure out what they were saying.

I respect the front page message so much because this is the only major forum where people aren't trying to pretend that Matrix Revolutions was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

ZZ7 wrote:

The Trilogy was not meant to "ask questions - answer questions", if it is what u thought, u were wrong. The Trilogy was not meant to be clear, they made it a DEEP puzzle since Matrix1 and as a fan you should have know that 2 and 3 were in the same path.

I agree with this. The movies were made to keep the audience thinking, like a good book.

ZZ7 wrote:

You can't answer YET to the many questions you have (Neo's power in real world, length of some fight, the title, ...) doesn't mean the plot is filled with holes. I can assure you that EVERY question you can have is ANSWERED one way or the other.

But I don't think that every question posed in these movies are meant to be answered, and this was done purposely to once again keep the audience thinking.

AnaisKarim wrote:

I respect the front page message so much because this is the only major forum where people aren't trying to pretend that Matrix Revolutions was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Um that's strange. Most places I've looked, the matrix revolutions is dismissed as appalling and meaningless.

I liked it...

But I suppose that's the equivalent to an ant crawling over a page, and then saying she liked the book.

Is there anyone out there who agree with me and think that The Matrix Recolutions should have an alternative ending included on the DVD? Is there a such somewhere?

Fatpie42 wrote:

AnaisKarim wrote: I respect the front page message so much because this is the only major forum where people aren't trying to pretend that Matrix Revolutions was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Um that's strange. Most places I've looked, the matrix revolutions is dismissed as appalling and meaningless.

The major forums like The Last Free City and Matrix Fans do not allow anyone to say the movies aren't perfect. You either praise them or get banned. They are bought and paid for and have brainwashed quite a few kiddies into abandoning their gut reaction to Revo - which is that it stank. If you are willing to watch a movie 200 times and have someone else tell you what you should have thought of it, you can think any film is a work of genius.

Frankly, I think The Stepford Wives had more relevant social commentary regarding life in a "matrix" than Revo did. And if you can't understand why I would say that, perhaps you don't really understand what a prison for your mind is.

Lysander wrote:

Wireless connections require transmitters and receivers. Neo has a magical connection to the Source.

Ah, but:

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' -Arthur C. Clarke

It is Clarke's Third Law. The first law is:

'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'

and the second law is:

'The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.'

Why do I mention these quotations from this brilliant scientist (inventor of the satellite) and author (of sci fi classics like Rendezvous With Rama, Childhood's End, and 2001: A Space Odyssey)? I think they tell volumes about how to approach the third movie in The Matrix Trilogy.

I agree with the original poster, ZZ7--if you didn't like the answers you got from Revolutions, then 'perhaps [you were] asking the wrong questions.' (-Agent Brown)

Something that I have noticed among Matrix Explained users, old and new, is that if there is a question insufficiently answered by the films, many people will simply stick to their interpretation, or even vascillate between different interpretations. Here's some advice for them: It is okay to just say 'I don't know!'

I don't understand why Neo was able to stop four sentinels (I actually count five on screen, though) by thinking it, except from the explanation given by the Oracle. I agree, it's not really conclusive, but since when is anything the Oracle says not vague?

I'm not saying 'Revolutions was the greatest thing since sliced bread.' There are loads of movies I like better than Revolutions, including M1; but to pretend that it was no good at all, just because I didn't understand it, would be unfair, not to the movie, but to myself! I think the whole point was to think about the movie afterward, to think about what it means, in its own context, in the context of the Trilogy as a whole, and in the context of our own lives.

I have said before that I think The Matrix Trilogy is an allegory for the perennial philosophy, and that the innumerable references to real religions and philosophies is partly a by-product of this (and partly a deliberate signpost to it). The perennial philosophy was the basis for the Mystery schools of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Asia Minor, etc. Vestiges of it can be found in Freemasonry, and modern 'esoteric schools' seem to be trying to resurrect it. It is ultimately a path to peace. (Hmm....)

The third chapter in The Matrix Trilogy is the Return part of the Hero's Journey, Joseph Campbell's unwitting outline of the initiation ritual of the Mystery schools. As with any initiation ritual, it doesn't matter if you know the words of the ritual, or even the meaning behind them; if you do not experience the ritual yourself, you won't attain the sublime knowledge that it is meant to impart. 'No one can be told what [it] is; you have to see it for yourself.'

Therefore, if you don't open (read: FREE) your mind to experiencing the Trilogy (not just M3, but the whole trilogy) you probably won't understand much about it--especially the third installment. We usually fear what we don't understand, and we usually hate what we fear.

Just because we don't understand the third Matrix film doesn't mean it is impossible to understand. We have to go beyond the limits of credibility into the incredible in order to find those limits. We have to keep questioning--it's the journey that matters, not the destination. As long as you are not prepared to question your own ideas and beliefs, then you will never understand.

And, oh yeah... regarding an 'alternate ending to Revolutions:' HELL NO! You can't just change something because you don't understand it. That is, in point of fact, how Christianity got to where it is today.

Quote:

Lysander wrote: Wireless connections require transmitters and receivers. Neo has a magical connection to the Source.

So the focal point is Neo's anatomy.

Remember this one little thing about the human body:
Everything is connected.
∙Your heart runs through your entire body, from the massive part in your chest through the arteries into your head and down into your toes.
∙Your brain does the same thing, only it starts in your head and not your chest.


Applicable:
When Neo is rendered blind and then sees Bane/Smith with his source eyes, he sees an entire body of /Smith's RSI. For one, he dodges a punch; and two, we (the audience) "can see you" (see what Neo sees).
So when /Smith overrided Bane in the Matrix and then answered the phone, the program /Smith entered Bane's brain via the jack in his head, and thus he was able to control Bane's thought process and entire body because the brain runs through the entire body.

Neo carries the anomalous prime program not only in his head but in his entire body. Obviously there are transmitters and receivers in his body (in his head, which allows him to 'jack in to the Matrix and have his mind seperated from his body), but there is no hard line, and that is the thing that brings about the whole entire question.
How did Neo stop 4/5 sentinels just by thinking it?
Dig deeper: if Neo can stop those sentinels, why can't he control Bane/Smith just by thinking it? Why does he have to use Kung Fu?

Think of it this way: the Matrix is like the internet of today.
The information in the internet can become manifest in reality if you click 'print.' If you were a super hacker like no other, an anomaly, a hacker who can remake the internet as you see fit, then the following are the parameters of your powers:
If something escapes the boundries of the internet and imprints itself onto paper, then you must destroy the "hardware" (the hardware being paper). If information on a hard drive is from the internet, then you cannot destroy that information unless it uploads itself into the internet.
**If there is a continuous connection between some hard drive and the internet then it is as if the entire hard drive is part of the internet/in the internet.
Neo's body can feel the source.

Side note: the present scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the existence of telepathy.

Even if I love the ideas expressed in the Revolutions, I was also desapointed by the lack of twist.

And most of the special effects were made in Zion, and it was a little redundant (ok, they fire and destroy sentinels, we got it) while the final Battle between Neo and Smith was not so impressive (I expected so much more). As an entertainment movie, it was a disapointment, but from the symbolic meaning and all it was a piece of art and should be taught in scripts schools as an example of good writting.

The first time I watched Revolutions, I was blown away by the action and special effects just as much as the philosophical concepts and the writing. I was confused by the ending, but for me, that confusion did not translate to disappointment. I don't think that way. For one thing, I knew that the Wachowskis like to make people think, so I assumed that there must be something I just don't get about the ending -- which implies that there is something there to 'get.' As long as that's true, there can be no disappointment except in myself for not understanding, and that is counterproductive to understanding, so that's out as well. Don't be all sour grapes just because the ending didn't suit you. Think about it, try to figure out what they were trying to say.

Of course, if you are just so frustrated by the ending of Revolutions that you just can't possibly keep thinking about it, and you decide to project your frustration onto the film and the filmmakers, that is your prerogative. I liked it. I'm not asking you to.

Oh, and Kratur, I liked your post. Very interesting.

Thanks annaerullo, and I agree with you as well. Come to think of it, The Matrix trilogy is one of the few trilogies/movies I do not fully comprehend while I simultaneously cannot find any holes in it (there is nothing philosophical or scientific in the movie that I can disprove nor are there any loopholes in the story itself) and there is, respecting all opinions here and on this world, one inevitable conclusion:
The best movie ever= The Matrix
The second-best movie ever= The Matrix Reloaded
The third-best movie ever= The Matrix Revolutions
The fourth-best movie ever= ?

I know that was just a statement of the obvious but I feel we needed "to get the obvious stuff out of the way."
Can anyone think of a #4 or even a movie better than any one of those 3?

American Beauty, The English Patient, The Lover, Big Fish, Moulin Rouge....

4) Kill Bill Vol. 1

5) Kill Bill Vol. 2

6) Fight Club

7) The Fifth Element (get the superbit DVD)

The Mummy

9) Man on Fire

10) Big Fish

Fight Club is the only quality movie of all the afore mentioned.

Kratur wrote:

Fight Club is the only quality movie of all the afore mentioned.

You don't like Kill Bill? Get out of town!

annaerullo wrote:

The first time I watched Revolutions, I was blown away by the action and special effects just as much as the philosophical concepts and the writing. I was confused by the ending, but for me, that confusion did not translate to disappointment. I don't think that way. For one thing, I knew that the Wachowskis like to make people think, so I assumed that there must be something I just don't get about the ending -- which implies that there is something there to 'get.' As long as that's true, there can be no disappointment except in myself for not understanding, and that is counterproductive to understanding, so that's out as well. Don't be all sour grapes just because the ending didn't suit you. Think about it, try to figure out what they were trying to say. Of course, if you are just so frustrated by the ending of Revolutions that you just can't possibly keep thinking about it, and you decide to project your frustration onto the film and the filmmakers, that is your prerogative. I liked it. I'm not asking you to. Oh, and Kratur, I liked your post. Very interesting.

What the hell are you talking about ? Your answer has no relation with what I wrote. You talk about the end while I didn't mention it, I was talking about entertainment, not understanding.

Kill Bill Vol 1 sucked hard but the second one was alright--actually better than average, way better than the first one.

Back off. So what if I didn't address the main point of your post? What I write about should be my prerogative, and if I happen to disagree with some of the details in your post, I don't expect to have my head bitten off for it, even if I seem to have missed your point.

The fact is, I do not believe I missed your point. You said you were 'desapointed [sic] by the lack of twist.' I mentioned the end because that's usually where the twist is. Since the twist was there was no twist, it confuses a lot of people (myself included) and even disappoints some people. Forgive me for categorically responding to something you said which just so happens to sound exactly like everyone else's gripe. Besides, you did mention the end; the Super Burly Brawl is part of the end of the story. The park thing with Oracle and Sati et al. is denouement; also part of the end, but not the end in toto. The climax occurs during the fight. And the fight itself is not even the important part of the fight; it is the dialogue between Neo and Smith (mostly Smith). Which brings me to my next point.

As for entertainment value, let's just say you and I disagree on what's entertaining. While you admit you like the writing, you seem to place the special effects above it in terms of entertainment value. Now, I think special effects are entertaining the first time, maybe the first few times I watch them. They are best when they're invisible, and for the most part, they are invisible in the Matrix movies. However, after I'm done looking at the special effects, I stop looking there for my entertainment, but move on instead to the writing and direction. If the writing makes me think, it is good (and that is not the only criterion for what I think is good). This is where I was coming from when talking about understanding, obviously. And that entertains me far longer than special effects. You want entertainment from special effects? Is that what turns you on about the Matrix movies? Fine. That's cool. But don't you dare swear at me for expressing my opinion about what entertains me.

Regarding those special effects in Zion, I'm sorry you thought it redundant; it means you didn't get the importance of the repetition. The directors were trying to keep up the tension for as long as possible, to draw the viewer in, to connect emotionally with the audience. Obviously, they missed with you.

You gotta lighten up, Apocryphe. I wasn't adressing you in particular, anyway. If I was, I would have done so, explicitly, as I am doing now, Apocryphe. My posts are otherwise meant to respond to the entire forum, and not to individual posts, except, perhaps, to the original poster. Have you not figured that out about me yet?

[sigh] Okay, now (back to the forum)... just to throw my two hundredths of a dollar in, Kill Bill rocked, Fight Club is excellent (and the book is just as good) and I liked The Fifth Element, for what it was (a good sci-fi romp). Big Fish was simply brilliant. Man on Fire was okay, and The Mummy is another fun adventure, but I would not put any of those movies on a top ten list with (or without) the Matrix films. Anyway, isn't this a wee bit off-topic?