On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?

As someone else said, Smith wants out.  Controlling the prison is the 
best way to engineer an escape.

>> Neo wanted the war to end.  The Architect wanted Smith dealt with. 
>> They both got something they wanted.
> 
> So if Neo defeats Smith they call off the attack on Zion. Now it makes
> sense that Neo would want to beat Smith... Still not completely sure why
> the Architect cares about Smith or the contents of the Matrix... Or how
> Neo manages to beat him, actually. They're both invincible...

Because without the Matrix, the people who are the "batteries" for the 
machines die.  No batteries, no power for the machines.

>>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, that's puzzling.
> 
>> It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come
>> out better than the original.
> 
> But when it happens, it's very, very cool.

Yep.

> Shrek 1: Rather good.
> Shrek 2: Really good.
> Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?

Admittedly, the third Shrek film advanced the CG, so for me, it was worth 
watching for that alone.

Jim

Post a reply to this message