[crooked fingers]

***SPOILERS***


Must say I enjoyed the third Matrix last night (much better than the second one IMHO) and while I may have to see it again to catch more stuff I have one question that I need answered or I'll get no work done today!

Can anyone explain why Neo had powers outside the Matrix, I'm sure there's something serious I'm missing here?

Cheers,
CF

[vonhosen]

He's a jedi ??

[clancol]

the machines are all connected to the sourse. (the main frame,)for power. if u remember the sentinals couldnt go past the clouds they lost all power and died)
and If you remember the orical said( the "one's" power (Neo) extendeds past the matrix all the way to the sourse)
hence the machines and neo were still connected to the same thing

[crooked fingers]

Cheers clancol, i assumed the sentinals just got hit by lighting, but what your saying makes more sense.

i'm also intrigued by the jedi idea. hmmmm, clones, check. young jedi/hero, check. old mentor who speaks in riddles, check. gorgeous love interest, check. slightly annoying character who thinks the hero is the business, check.

[CrispyXUK]

How is he connected to the source? may be a wireless network

[Dimmy]

Even if you manage to get your head around every logistic of the plot, and know - in basic terms - the entire sequence of events, I still don't think you can have The Matrix sufficiently explained to you.

I could quite easily write 20,000 words about the three movies covering most of its meanings, and people who didn't understand the movie off-the-bat would still have no idea what I was talking about.

The answer is, if you didn't understand it - Tough , try watching it again and if you still don't get it then you never will .

[Desticado]

Alternatively subject your self to 4 hours of chinese water torture.

its just as bad but doesnt leave you with such an anticlimax afterwards....

[docsmith2k1]

OK - so I got the Matrix, was moderately confused by Matrix II, and while III had a great battle for Zion sequence in the middle, and closed the circle on Neo (him being the one and all). What was that little chat at the end between the Oracle and the Architect, and who was the little Indian girl supposed to be. Who pulled all the strings? - The sentinent computer (the Source) or the Architect?
I am a man of reasonable intelligence and I don't accept that you "either get it or don't, and it can't be explained " arguement. That sounds like someone who has no idea themselves what was going on.

[Dimmy]

To fully understand the story behind the little indian girl, You'll have to watch the Animatrix.

The architect pulled all the strings in the second film. This was because his rationale for 'Control' was borne of his past experience of the arising Integral Anomalie of the matrix (Neo being the 6th One and all).

However, after Neo chose not to return to the source in Reloaded, The Architect's control was completely absolved. This is because - as the oracle says - he can't see past the choices he doesn't understand. And is exemplified in the end of his speech in Reloaded by him blatantly lying about the nature of circumstances.

It's also worthy to note that thereafter this, there were no strings to pull, and no control was exhibited upon the descisions made by characters.

Originally posted by docsmith2k1
That sounds like someone who has no idea themselves what was going on.

Don't say silly things like that

[Desticado]

I've seen the animatrix and cant recall anything in that about the lil indian girl. Care to refresh my memory? Cant be bothered to dig out the disk and wade through it again just for one reference.

Got to endorse docsmith's comment of sounds like someone who has no idea themselves what was going on. Dimmy's statement of if you didn't understand it - Tough , try watching it again and if you still don't get it then you never will. sounds like the kind of aloof statement from certain individuals that try to laud it over others with their claims of knowing all the rules to Mornington Crescent...

[Dimmy]

Desticado - then prove me wrong and figure it out for yourself .

[Sly]

i thought it was about the The Wachowski Brothers making sequals to get nicer houses with bigger swimming pools??

[Miyazaki]

Originally posted by CrispyXUK
How is he connected to the source? may be a wireless network

The only source i was connected to was scrumpy, desperatly trying to forget all the crap that was that film.

Neo has the ability to use his powers in the "real world" because it is infact not the real world but a different version of the matrix.

[figrin_dan]

I was under the impression that Neo was Jesus.

[The Nightfly]

Neo has the ability to use his powers in the "real world" because it is infact not the real world but a different version of the matrix.

Perhaps Neo really is in the real world but what the film is implying is that the way we perceive the real-world is no more real than the world perceived in The Matrix.

Beyond physical forms, everything in the real world is made up of sub-atomic particles (=electromagnetic energy, = 'light') arranged and organised by the laws of physics. Remember, "There is no spoon". Even humans are just sub-atomic particles controlled the laws of physics ("Love and Karma are just words")

In The Matrix, Neo could see beyond the physical form and 'sensed' the world as green code (1s and 0s controlled by logic). Eventually in the real world he could see beyond the physical form and 'sensed' the real world as orange light (sub-atomic electromagnetic energy controlled by the laws of physics). Knowing the true nature of either world allowed him more control over that world. In Matrix I, Morpheous said to Neo "You cannot break the rules but you can bend them"

Where Matrix I was a tightly packaged film with everything explaind, Matrix II and III are really two halves of a much looser film that gives clues but omits the explanations.

Allan

[Miyazaki]

It'll be interesting to listen to the directors commentary on both films when they get their DVD release, if there is one.

But i suspect like many things, a lot of people are reading deeper meaning into this film than there really is.

In reference to the sub-atomic point, no-one knows what goes on there and we don't even know what constitutes sub atomic particles beyond the level of the quark. And indeed what forces exist at that level.

[JamesOD]

At the end of the day it is a sci-fi film like any other there is no hidden meaning and a very poor plot. The film would have been better if left as one movie without the two pointless cash cows that were the end of the trilogy anyone who claims to see hidden meaning in the movies are giving the directors too much credit all the two sequels do is detract from the first groundbreaking (from a technology and filmmaking standpoint) movie.

I love movies where the director makes you discuss some of the questions raised but not this one where the massive holes in the plot just frustrated me and the folks I went to see it with.

I went to a early afternoon screening and at least 30 (there were only about 50 of us in there) people got up and left before halfway through with some even asking for there money back

This is not a attack on anyone here I just wanted to have my oppinion heard

Originally posted by JamesOD
I went to a early afternoon screening and at least 30 (there were only about 50 of us in there) people got up and left before halfway through with some even asking for there money back
[/B]

I didn't like the film all that much but those people are just idiots. Especially asking for their money back.

[seany]

Just got back from watching it. I wont give a massvive post about it, because the film is just not deep enough to warrent one. We thought it was a good movie. Better then what we expected after all the bad press its had.

[KraGorn]

Originally posted by Dimmy
The answer is, if you didn't understand it - Tough , try watching it again and if you still don't get it then you never will .

Or perhaps it's like the King's new clothes .. there's nothing there to see.

It's pretentious, pompous, vacuous .. great effects, non-existent story.

[Dimmy]

To paraphrase Morpheus, That is of course, Your perogative KRaGorn .

There is something to see, I haven't just Made Up meaning for the film.

[KraGorn]

Originally posted by docsmith2k1
I am a man of reasonable intelligence and I don't accept that you "either get it or don't, and it can't be explained " arguement. That sounds like someone who has no idea themselves what was going on.

Originally posted by Sly
i thought it was about the The Wachowski Brothers making sequals to get nicer houses with bigger swimming pools??

Nice one Sly .. as good a meaning as there needs to be.

[Dimmy]

Originally posted by docsmith2k1
I am a man of reasonable intelligence and I don't accept that you "either get it or don't, and it can't be explained " arguement. That sounds like someone who has no idea themselves what was going on.

Originally posted by Desticado
Got to endorse docsmith's comment of sounds like someone who has no idea themselves what was going on. Dimmy's statement of if you didn't understand it - Tough , try watching it again and if you still don't get it then you never will. sounds like the kind of aloof statement from certain individuals that try to laud it over others with their claims of knowing all the rules to Mornington Crescent...

Or you could conceid that the problem's you and not the movie...

[KraGorn]

So your theroy is there's a deep meaning behind all this pseudo-religious clap-trap which I'm too dumb to see .. possibly, but looks like I'm not alone .. I can live without that knowledge thanks.

[Dimmy]

Originally posted by KRaGorn
So your theroy is there's a deep meaning behind all this pseudo-religious clap-trap which I'm too dumb to see .. possibly, but looks like I'm not alone .. I can live without that knowledge thanks.

In the other thread I agreed with what you're saying

The majority won't 'get' the film and aren't really expected to. But sweeping statements that basically say:

'There's no story or meaning to the sequels full stop, and if you don't agree with me you're a lying idiot'

are quite frankly ridiculous.

[KraGorn]

Originally posted by Dimmy
'There's no story or meaning to the sequels full stop, and if you don't agree with me you're a lying idiot'

are quite frankly ridiculous.

Indeed .. don't know why you raised the idea.

BTW, don't recall participating in another thread, must have me confused with someone else .. looks like more than just me don't 'get it'.

[seany]

"The majority won't 'get' the film and aren't really expected to"

That really is something the comic book guy from the simpsons would say dimmy.

You really are giving the writers more credit then they deserve.

[Dimmy]

Originally posted by KRaGorn
BTW, don't recall participating in another thread, must have me confused with someone else .. looks like more than just me don't 'get it'.

I acknowledge in the other thread that the sentiments you express toward the sequels are entirely justified and not beyond expectation.

Originally posted by keanyboy
"The majority won't 'get' the film and aren't really expected to"

That really is something the comic book guy from the simpsons would say dimmy.

You really are giving the writers more credit then they deserve.

In one way, the writers should be shamed for making two movies that were supposed to deliver on the same 'Popcorn Flick' premise of the original, and doing something completely different.

Regardless of what people say to me, I understood the movie and appreciated it for everything it was, and nobody in a thread is going to change that.

It's also not beyond expectation that the type of people who dismiss the movie as Tripe would imply the reservations already made against people who actually enjoyed it... How mature...

[Miyazaki]

I have to say i envy you Dimmy, I wish that i "got" the movies, or could eliminate the noise of my teeth grinding together enough to "understand" the movie.

As it were, i'd rather spend the £5 and enjoy said movie, than sit there wishing i'd watched something else.

I wanted so much to like this movie, and refused to have it coloured by the appauling "reloaded".

I'm glad you seemed to like it, I just wish i did.

As for finding meaning in something, you'd be better versed to read a book by Richard Dawkins or Lee Smolin, than listen to a lot of ill-communicated and uneducated noise about "what is real" like either of these Matrix sequels.

It's funny how people with arts degrees or "artistic" people have so much more to say about the world or the universe than scientists.