Talk:The Matrix (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'November 5, 2003 saw both the conclusion to the film trilogy and an unprecedented worldwide release of a major motion picture when The Matrix Revolutions hit cinema screens worldwide at exactly the same time.' - at the same time as what? This sentence doesn't make sense. Andrewferrier 14:59, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me - instead of being released at different times in different countries they were released at the same time. Which bit don't you get? sheridan 03:21, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Move to "The Matrix Trilogy"? — Phil Welch 10:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No way - there is much more to the Matrix series than the Trilogy, including two video games, an online game, and some anime cartoons. --Nerd42 15:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Science? 2 Reasons for Matrix energy scheme 3 mormon influence? 4 Page move 5 Acknowledged influences 6 Clothing 7 Matrix comics 8 Philosophical? 9 Critical Reception 10 Reception of Sequals 11 Matrixism Link 12 Apostrophe Abuse 13 Blade 14 Defending One's Edit in the Edit Summary 15 Books 16 Death of Innocence 17 Creative Chronology

[edit] Science?

The science section states:

The chemical energy required to keep a human being alive is vastly greater than the bio-electric or thermal energy that could be harvested; human beings, like all living beings, are not energy sources, but rather energy consumers.

I think that this is totally wrong. The law of Conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore humans are neither sources or consumers of energy, they just convert it from one form to another. JeremyA 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Very thoughtful on the law of conservation Jeremy. Bear this in mind though:

Do you recall in biology, that the sun has the most energy, which is transferred to plants, and that as you go along the food chain from plants to carnivores, the energyd decreases. No one is saying that the energy gets destroyed. Think of it in economic terms as: "it isn't very cost effective to run a machine off something biological". The author is simply stating that which a lot of scientists have calculated. Dessydes

Not only do I recall biology, I have a biology PhD. My physics, however, is a little rusty, but I am still convinced that the sentence that I quote is wrong. All the energy that a human extracts from food is eventually converted to heat. It is not used up, and therefore to label humans as "energy consumers" is wrong. JeremyA 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, humans consume energy with daily activities. If the only activity you have is lie in a pot with VR running in your brain you're not going to spend a lot of that energy. - the machines feed the humans, the humans metabolise (spelling?) the food, the machines must have found a way to harvest the energy from human bodies. Any ideas on this? VdSV9•♫ 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The electrical signals sent within the body for the motion commands should be too low and I guess it wouldn't make any sense to collect that energy. I think it was just the "thermal energy"...? VdSV9•♫ 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the reson why they give that simplistic explanation.Average population's noklege of physic's is proporsionnal to my speling.yes energy is ither created or destroid,but that don't mean that it is possible to do what you want.energy tends to dispurse evenly,USEFUL energy is lost for us but not for the universe.So a human body consumes(food) more usful energy that we can extract from it(thermoelectricity for example).The article corectly make's that distinction.Thermoelectricity efficiency is well below 1 so you can't run a perpetual mouvment that way.It's plain rubish,the power source explanation,it would have been more cost effective to simply burn the food in a thermic machine of some sort.But i can buy that we are in the "matrix" and thus the matrix physics are'nt the "real physics"(machines physics).--Ruber chiken 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

no ,even if you lie in a pot your efficiency is a catastrophy.The brain alone consumes 20% of your food all the time ,asleep or doing maths.And yes there are thermoelectric devices thet can transform a temparture difference directly in to electricity but efficiency are low(and expencive)--Ruber chiken 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If we knew the science behind the pods, perhaps then we would know the exact purpose of human use. Perhaps the pods include a system of transistors and amplifiers that work to enhance the productivity of the brain, and its output?--Cuardaim 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Whoever included Ilya in this article does not understand his research. I am removing the section about Ilya because: 1- Most of it is plagerized from another article 2- It has very little to do with the article. Ilya's research is based upon a sustainable natural environment, not an artificial one that requires special conditions for energy. 3- Much of the research mentioned by the poster has absolutley nothing to do with energy production.

-Raidzuo

I removed the following paragraph that was tacked onto the end of the science section: "Again it states clearly in the films themselves that humans are batteries and used in conjunction with a form of nuclear fusion. Therefore they are not the actual original power source but a short term storage medium of some type." Adding it onto the end of the section is a very poor way of integrating it into the article. In any case, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. KhaTzek 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Matrix energy scheme

Reasons for energy producing scheme, described in Matrix could be not logical, but historical. At first. in real world, it could be invented simple virtual reality I/O devices. Then computers could became power supplied from bodies of their users. Then automatical food delivery system could be added. In this way, step by step, our modern world could evolute to Matrix world. So we would have machines, powered by human bodies despite the fact, that it is not the optimal scheme. Dims 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the AniMatrix? Sorry, but that's just not what happened. --Nerd42 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw some episodes, but what do you mean by saying 'happened'? Nothing is hapenned actually, it is a fantastic! :) Dims 08:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all the animatrix clearly explains the origins of the human power plant and the first matrix...also, Your syntax is so bizarre i really have no idea what you are saying.Solidusspriggan 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my English! I saw some animatrixes, but didn't find these reasons. May be they explained in other parts. What are they are? Anyway, Matrix, Animatrix and reality must not share the same model. Dims 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the animatrix shorts called "The Second Renaissance Part 1" outlines the rise of the machines and "The Second Renaissance Part 2" shows the fall of humanity. The animmatrix and the matrix movies do share the same models and certain Animatrices even tie directly into matrix reloaded "Kid Story" shows how The Kid was saved and "Final Flight of the Osiris" is referred to by Niobe during the captain's meeting in reloaded when she speaks about "these geotherms confirm....". Solidusspriggan 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So, using your knowledge, can you explain, why machines use human power, while they have nuclear one? Dims 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How About this, a hybrid of the two theories: The purpose of the human beings is to serve as a computation mode in a massive network. AND, this computational network is used to monitor, regulate, and direct the distribution of fusion energy throughout the entire machine society. This would make statements that humans are used for a power source vaguely correct, even if not every word Morpheus said could be applied. It would also bring in the more realistic elements of brains as network nodes. And, it would reference to Morpheus' "combined with a form of fusion" line.--Daniel (UTC)

I may point that you are WRONG. We use our energy, in talking, walking running, playing, smoking (excluding thinking). all these activities were vanished, and the machines will be able still to use us as a source of energy. 3:29 am EDT, 17 July 2006 John aTr

Irrelevant. Even sitting still, the human body doesn't produce energy. The amount it simply stores will be less than the amount put into it through food and ozygen. --Daniel 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw wristwatch, which was powered with shaking hand while walking. Dims 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Daniel. While the practicality of using humans as an energy source is vaguely understandable, it seems more logical that the machines would harness human logic. While the machines are advanced AI, humans are still logical.--Cuardaim 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mormon influence?

It seems to me like in addition to all the other religoius angles, the Mormon concept of Zion has been thrown in there pretty heavily, especially in Reloaded. --Nerd42 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

User:Vladimir Morales moved this article from The Matrix series to The Matrix Trilogy. I've moved it back, for the following reasons:

1. There is more to the series than just the three main films. There are also the comics, the videogames and The Animatrix, and moving the page to "Trilogy" would prevent discussion of those additional aspects of the franchise. I suppose The Matrix franchise would be acceptable, but personally I prefer "series".
2. If the move had been right (it's not, for the reason above), I don't think that "trilogy" should have been capitalised. :)

--Nick R^Talk 11:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledged influences

I think we should list, on this talk page, all of the influences that have been specifically cited by the filmmakers, for easy reference when we talk about them in the main article. I think those are the ones that should be given most prominence in the article, above those that have been pointed out by critics and other viewers. I haven't watched The Matrix Revisited or the documentary on the Animatrix DVD in a while, but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head:

• Ghost in the Shell - Joel Silver says something about the Wachowski brothers showing him an anime and saying "we wanna do that for real". I'm not sure where Ghost in the Shell was specifically mentioned, but I'm sure it has been.
• On one of the documentaries, someone, I can't remember who, mentions "the framing of Frank Miller".

Can anyone think of any others? --Nick R^Talk 17:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well considering the anime directors and producers they were attracted to to create the animatrix series(talked about in various special features) it can be reasoned that at least one anime from each creator was admired by and inspired the brothers. for instance, I'm sure Aeon Flux was the draw for peter cheung as it is similar to the matrix in many respects and watching his other work that was done before the matrix, Reign, it is obvious that that isnt reflected in the matrix films.

By the same logic, I suppose the comic book artwork of Steve Skroce and Geof Darrow must have had some impact, since they were chosen to provide the storyboards and concept art for the films. --Nick R^Talk 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of the movie "Robot Holocaust" as a influence? The Matrix is nearly a remake. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093872/ http://www.jabootu.com/robotholocaust.htm Mhocker 10:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing

However, the practical reasoning behind the use of sunglasses in the filming on the movie is that the natural reaction of a person is to blink when the eye views the muzzle flash from a firearm. Sunglasses were used in the film so the audience does not see the actors blinking during gunfight scenes. The glasses also provided limited eye protection from the flying debris of the first movie's "Government Lobby" shootout.

Is their a citation for this or is this just a speculation, as "pratical" as these reasons may be surely the sunglasses were a purely a "wardrobe" and style issue.--195.171.131.151 14:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Lucas

I agree; I've added a ^{[citation needed]} notice to draw attention to it. --Nick R^Talk 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This was given a mention by the production team in some of the vast pile of Making Of material they produced, however the brief (I think two-sentence) mention doesn't make it clear whether they thought of it during costume design - it might've been realised when shooting began. So without an unambigious source, yes, it should've been gone. Sockatume 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you consider all the philosophical viewpoints expressed in the movie, it is difficult to assume that any part of the costume was simply 'practical'. It seems to me that even something as simple as sunglasses have a significant effect on the movie. Consider that the sunglasses cast a reflection of the things around them, and that the camera often focuses on those reflections. Consider, too, that the only time sunglasses are worn is in the Matrix. If you look at the philosopical aguments of Plato and the Allegory of the Cave, you would see that the reflections of the world inside the Matrix are there to show alternate realities of an un-reality. Nira 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nira

[edit] Matrix comics

No mention of Matrix comics on wikipedia! Maybe make matrix portal?

Someday... sure! VdSV9•♫ 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical?

As a student of philosophy, I thought I should point out that I encountered no philosophical elements in the 'reloaded' episode. I know the word 'philosophy' has received many alternate meanings (one of the most irritating of which is companies thinking that their marketing scheme can be called 'a philosophy'), but that is no excuse to misuse the word in an encyclopedia, even if the article is not about philosophy but about a film. And especially, of course, if the word is linked to the philosophy article. Sorry about being so stuck up. :) DirkvdM 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, speak your mind, the matrix is not really "philosophic" per se, but rather takes several elements from philosophy (usually the shallow ones) and places them here and there. Now if there was a brand new philosophy that the movie would present, that would be another story. (unknown author)

Shallow? Have you ever studied Philosophy? While I can't say that I am familiar with Reloaded, I know that in the first movie alone, there are numerous philisophical citings. Most of them are anything but shallow. Take, for example, the book in which Neo keeps the disks at the beginning of the movie. It is a book called "Simulacra and Simulation" a book written by a French man, (Beaurillard). Further, the chapter in which the disks are kept is one about Nietszche's Overman. Now, I am not particularly fond of Nietzsche or his Philosohies, but it is not possible to call them shallow in anyway. There are also examples of Christianity, Buddhism, Hiduism, and many refrences to such philosophies as The Allegory of the Cave. Further, the refrences are not placed 'here and there', but are a fundamental part of the movies, or at least the first of them. Nira 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nira

[edit] Critical Reception

This section is horrible at the moment. No citations, original research, unverified claims etc. I disagree with a lot of whats said so I will refrain from editting it myself, but if no one adds citations for the claims made it will be deleted in a few days. Konman72 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i have two things to say, and I already posted this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_%28fictional_universe%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_fictional_universe and that's y i am keeping the dates.

about "Which year?" and the LAST SCENE (The ending): People spent awful alot of time thinking about which year, and the try to come up with these weird assumptions and numbers. I am very sorry but this is really Ridiculous, because you are analyizing this story, as if it's true and we are in the year 3000, anyway, we can ask the Architect? or we can ask whoever wrote his part or we can ask the director or What? it really doesn't matter whether it's 3.6 or 3.4. but you can also read my Explanation on Smith Deletion which we might analyze. (John aTr) 1:39 pm Sunday 5/7/06 Eastern Time.

How about you might want to think about, that a milli second before the copying process to Neo is completed Neo deleted himself, thus deleting Only one of the Smiths (THE New and the Most Powerfull Smith), thus not transferring Neo's Power to Smith. The Machine Main Frame took into account Neo's Power outside the Matrix and "How he got there?" so for a minimum Loss, The Machines Let Smith Force Neo to Sacrifice himself, in turn The MAchine main Frame Deleted Smith or Rebooted the System, to it's Normal Position (the seventh Version, whether, it's 3.5 or 3.7). Because the Machines could delete Smith anyway as he is (still connected to) anyone plugged in to the Matrix in the fields whom are connected to the machines, thus i don't see still why Neo was need to delete Smith. With the same talking, No one could Kill Neo, but on the other hand Smith is unphysical program that is bounded by the matrix (Exception, his only escape incidence to the Real world, which is limited). Rebooting the Matrix will result in "the extention of Smith", Thus Neo Mistankely thought that Smith Grew beyond the Machines power (or why they not deleting him, because he isnot like an Exile that hide and escape from agents) it's Beleived that Agents Job is to Delete these kind of Abnormalities, to Fix the Matrix, put there's no point for fixing just "RESTART OR REBOOT", but the Machines Let Smith to Do his Work, Finnaly to attract Neo, The MAchines big Threat, and thus killing (deleting) him, but the MAchines were not expecting that "Peace Deal" Because They realized that No one Can kill Neo."I think this might be a part of the Theory". By the way, Will you watch constantine ? (John aTr) 1:44 pm Sunday 5/7/06 Eastern Time.

[edit] Reception of Sequals

This category is riddled with Weasel Words, most have sources cited. perhaps someone would be willing to add actual names for some of these sources. For example: While the first movie was extremely successful, viewers continue to debate the quality of the sequels. Some fans and professional critics believe they exceed the quality and conceptual heights of the first film, while others found the later films disappointing. [1] Rottentomatoes.com is listed as a source, but we don't know which critics said such a thing. Any thoughts? Graveenib 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it. What does the section say, actually? "Some people liked the series, but other people didn't." No kidding! Sounds like...well, like every movie ever made.

[edit] Matrixism Link

Regarding the link to Matrixism, the information provided in the Geocities site is possibly dubious. For example, there are photos supposingly of fliers in different cities around the world that appear to be fake. If the informmation from this site is deemed to be dubious, then WP:V is fairly clear: "Material from... sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information... in articles about themselves". Considering this article concerns The Matrix series, not Matrixism, the link should possibly be deleted. Any thoughts? Addhoc 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Graveenib 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Cuardaim 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe Abuse

lol, Firsfron... This seems too trivial to edit war about, and I seem to be a minority on this one. Maybe someone can set me straight. There's a sentence in the article that reads Any system which is open with its environment can freely produce more energy than the operator has to input. I interpret this as: the environment belongs to the system, so it is posessive. It is my understanding that when speaking in the posessive context there should be an apostrophe. Example: "David's shoelace is untied" instead of "Davids shoelace is untied." The shoelace belongs to David. But this is speaking about a person's belonging. What of a belonging of an object? "My car's tire is flat" or "My cars tire is flat?" What about "I wrecked my car. Its tire is flat" or "I wrecked my car. It's tire is flat?" Which of these is correct? --Graveenib 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Per this grammar site (and 1,000 others), "it's" means "it is" or "it has", never "belonging to it". Cheers! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable...VdSV9•♫ 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blade

I think there should be some mention of the influence of the movie "Blade" on the wardrobes in "The Matrix." In fact, maybe there should be mention of "Blade's" basic similarities to "The Matrix" in plot. Both movies portray a dark world being run by a secret society that most humans have no knowledge of. Both movies portray a superpowered savior that is aware of the menace and the one person capable of stopping it. And both movies feature extreme uses of martial arts and gunplay. Since the movies were released so close together, this may all be coincidence. But it's worth noting.

Did Kim Barrett say in an interview her influence was from Blade? Did the Wachowskis? Until this info is verified, I disaree. --Graveenib 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree for those reasons. But also because if we mentioned every film/story where the world is being run by a secret society, we'd end up with thousands of references.Shamess 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defending One's Edit in the Edit Summary

If you feel you need to defend your edit in the edit summary, then maybe you should rethink the edit or discuss it first. --Graveenib 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Should there be lists of books about the Matrix series? There are many many books.--Darrelljon 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What books did you have in mind? I guess I was not aware of books in the series.--Cuardaim 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Innocence

In spite of being a huge fan of the series, the other day, I realized some hypocrisy of Morpheus and his crew. When agents take over innocent people's bodies, act of killing an agent inadvertently kills an innocent life. It is similar to human shield used by terrorists and the like. Does killing that agent justify the murder? Or am I mistaken in that once a person is possessed by an agent, he/she will be permanently effected? If that's the case, then I guess they were essential dead as soon as the agent possessed him/her.

It would have been interesting if neo showed some sorrow for indirectly killing innocence? And I don't buy the argument that they're "blue pills" and their deaths are irrelevant since they're plugged into sterile pods. If the Matrix is an allegory to our lives here, then ending innocent life, freed or not, should not be justified.

--Vagrant ronin 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the host's "file" is just deleted. And they're most probably removed from their pod in the "farms". If we consider the Matrix to be like a normal computer, I don't think there's a way to overright a file but keep the existing file in the background somewhere. Shamess 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would personally believe that the innocent victims of an agent take over would more than likely go through a "reboot" of sorts. Seeing as how the Matrix runs off of humans, I could understand a form of "surge protection." Neo and the other individuals freed of the Matrix can be killed either in or out of the Matrix. I think this is due to the fact that they are no longer protected by the mainframe.--Cuardaim 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Chronology

I'd like to see some mention of when the three movies were written. My bias would have this illustrating a "tacked on" quality to the two sequels, but someone who knows more than me about these movies could probably flesh out some of the continuity issues. Manys 06:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)