»Did Matrix 2 change your view on Matrix 1?«

Register as a user first, then vote here.

i always thought that morpheus and his crew were the only ppl alive in the real world when i saw matrix 1... i was wrong...but equally shocked that there were soo many freed ppl in matrix 2

Hhmmmm.... I guess they didn't explain much about the human restitence in the Matrix. Reloaded didn't change my view of the Matrix, but made me notice certain things. Like when the camera zooms in on the monitors wacthing Smith interigate Neo, you will notice that they are actually the Architects multiple monitors in his room, not Security monitors as everyone enitially and as some still believe.

not really, maybe a few small things but the majority didnt change the way i looked at the first matrix!

hungarian kid wrote:

Hhmmmm.... I guess they didn't explain much about the human restitence in the Matrix. Reloaded didn't change my view of the Matrix, but made me notice certain things. Like when the camera zooms in on the monitors wacthing Smith interigate Neo, you will notice that they are actually the Architects multiple monitors in his room, not Security monitors as everyone enitially and as some still believe.

You know, it took me till three weeks ago to realize that those were the Architech's monitors in "The Matrix".

But I will admit, I didn't look at the first film the same after "Reloaded", but that's a good thing. I really expected "Reloaded" to spend more time "in the Matrix", but after multiple viewings, I love "Reloaded" even more than the first film.

darC

i thought that was one of the best things about Reloaded was that it totally changes your perspective of everything we thought we knew after seeing The Matrix.

the Wachowskis really dropped a major bombshell on us with the Architect's speech.

Tru Dat.

But some morons think that the entire Architect's speech didn't make a difference in the story at all. They are the same ones who think that Reloaded was pointless and the story could have been the same with just Revolutions. Bah....assholes

haha Akshat, i'm seeing a whole side of you i never knew existed! (i saw your post to stinkz in the other thread!)

but yeah.. i never understood how you could possibly think the architect's speech made no difference to the story.. it's even bigger than "Luke.. I am your father." haha

Heh, the way I see it is, if you didn't like the Architect scene or/and thought it was pointless, then you most probably didn't understand a word he said because you're stupid.

haha, delicately put.

Personally, I didn't care a whole lot for 2.I found the rest of the series much better.I loved the twins, and alot of the action scenes, but i found over all a serious lack of the bullet time action, that help make the movies a big hit.This is my personal opion, however.

that means you are one that was pulled in by the effects and took the movie as face value...but there is much more in there....how far in the rabbit hole do you want to go DreamsRPGa?

I actually am a bit different. I have seen the first Matrix about a 1000, and then probably Reloaded like 10 and then Revolutions only once. I still think that the first movie is the best and that the second movie really hasn't had an effect on me seeing as how I view them so far apart that I don't connect the entire trilogy and reflect on it all.

So basically, I view the Matrix only as the Matrix nothing more than that.. thus I can always enjoy it without fail.

See this is what bugs me. So many people view The Matrix as a standalone film and separate it from the sequels even though it wasn't meant to be this way. If the Wachowskis had tried to release Reloaded and Revolutions a bit earlier, perhaps things would have been different.

and it's not like they really could release it earlier.. they were working solidly on Reloaded & Revolutions.. just that 9 min burly brawl was like 3 years of work!

Ya thats true. I realize that. But the Wachowskis couldn't work around human imperfection- wrong assumptions and ideas about Matrix 1.

i must say, my view was changed after seeing reloaded. i was somewhat dissapointed cuz, being a christian, i wanted neo to "fulfill prophecy", but instead he just turned out to be a human "cog" to the machines, which did suck, but i learned to cope with this idea and soon liked all the films. and i was probably one of the first to realize those television screens in the first matrix were the architects. i acctually have fought with ppl on this, but its so obvious! another thing that still bugs me is whether the WB's were "intended" on making a trilogy to begin with. if i knew that for sure, i would be more at ease, knowing they knew the whole trilogy before they made the first movie.[/b]

Put it this way:

How irritated would you be with the person you are talking to if:

1) He hasn't seen Matrix yet?

2) He has seen Matrix, but not Reloaded yet?

3) He has seen both Matrix and Reloaded, but not Revolutions yet?


Personal answers:
1) So irritated, that my irritation turns into holy compassion for him!
2) Just a bit irritated, but not overtly
3) zero irritation

What I mean by this is that Reloaded and Revolutions do give more or less additional value, *but* the main philosophical foundation is absolutely laid down in the first film. Thus Reloaded didn't change the basic view of the first film, imo. And about the Architect's speech additionally extending the rabbit whole downwards. Well, I kind of expected that after seeing the first film. Actually I'm a bit disappointed that the depth of the rabbit whole wasn't more obvious in the last two films. We are kind of finding all of that out afterwards...


/z

im looking at the poles and im amazed at how many ppl didnt think reloaded changed there view on the first film. i mean, i thought it was mindblowing-ly different from the first one. and as for the architects speech, i remember not getting a word of it, so i had to analyze the whole speech with a dictionary in hand! lol. how many ppl had to do it this way to figure it the hell out, jw, lol.

When I bought M1, I didn't knew that M2 and M3 would came after that, so when I saw M2, it really changed my view on M1!.

There a 2 possible scenarios:

1. The wachowskis were not intending to make a trilogy so the latter two films didnot make such an impact on M1.

or....

2. They probably tried so hard not to spoil the magic of the first movie that they struggled to keep it least confusing so it didnot change much of the views in M1.

Im just suggesting. What do u all think?

I think the first option...

I think the second one. The only way Reloaded changed my view was it made me appreciate the first movie's low use of CGI. Being a 3D image artist, any blatant CGI work in a huge budget movie is like a slap to the face for me (Neo flying doing his "Superman thing").

What changed my view about "The Matrix" after watching Reloaded was Neo. After watching The Matrix, I thought that Neo was like a superhero or a "Messiah" meant to save the world.

Number two didn't change my view of the first film at all. It's a bloody good movie, with or without sequels.