On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:26:29 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> Neo is invincible. Smith is
>>> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
>> 
>> For the future of the human race; humanity's survival.  Fairly typical
>> messiah story plotline in that regard.
> 
> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival? 

By the end of the third film that question is answered:  Neo taking on 
Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the 
Architect couldn't control him any more.  Neo could solve that, but as in 
any negotiation (and the Merovingian said it best), in order to negotiate 
both sides have to have something the other wants.

Neo wanted the war to end.  The Architect wanted Smith dealt with.  They 
both got something they wanted.

> How would defeating
> Neo alter humanity's survival? The implications are not clear to me.

If Smith had beaten Neo, then the machines would've continued to attack 
Zion until it was wiped out.  What's more, from the Architect's speech in 
the 2nd film, Neo was supposed to be there to help restart the human 
race.  Without him, that doesn't happen, and humanity dies.

>>> So they can meet the
>>> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
>>> doens't really mean a lot...?
>> 
>> The Architect's speech for me basically boiled down to "people wouldn't
>> believe in the Matrix if it was too perfect or if there wasn't an
>> appearance of choice".
> 
> Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the
> Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless. 

To be sure, there is plenty of anvil-dropping that takes place during all 
three films.  (ie, hitting the audience over the head with something that 
should be obvious just so they don't get lost).

> I think
> XKCD summed it up nicely:
> 
> http://www.xkcd.com/566/

:-)

> Of course, if they just *told* Neo (and therefore the audience) what's
> going on, it wouldn't be such a cool movie I guess. By unplugging him
> and *then* explaining what's going on, he now has no way to go back.
> Which is kind of part of the interesting tension of the film.

I didn't really find that that created tension after Cypher was killed 
off.

> The 3rd one is at least moderately interesting. The 2nd one just sucks
> though.

I don't know, from a story standpoint the second is weaker than the first 
(as is the third).  I would've liked them to do more with the twins and 
creatures of that sort.  I think the second works better if you have 
previously watched The Animatrix and at least had a look at the video 
game.  That was also one of the problems that 2&3 had - you could jump in 
and watch them without TA and the VG, but they make less sense than if 
you do.

> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"

Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start, 
AFAICR.

> I guess it's not that unusual for a sequal to be substantially worse
> than the original. It's disappointing though...

It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come out 
better than the original.

Jim

Post a reply to this message