And lo on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:07:30 -0000, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's  
>>> all utter nonsense from beginning to end
>>    I disagree. Most of the things have plausible explanations. A few of
>> them might be far-fetched retconning, but they are still plausible.
>
> Don't get me wrong; I rather like the Matrix, and I even enjoyed the  
> almost universally-reviled sequels. Especially the second one.
>
> My main problem really is that the 'big' explanations are hogwash.  
> Mainly, the machines' dependence on humans - power is a ridiculous  
> excuse, and even if you accept that there's still no need for the Matrix  
> whatsoever. And why would the machines have been dependent on solar  
> power? Just a slim excuse to provide a wrecked world as the future  
> setting.

Well yeah, I'm trying to remember the animations they dealt with it in  
more detail.

> But once you get past those, I guess the rest of it does make a kind of  
> sense. Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted  
> exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix. And I  
> still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets  
> most of the time, but fists, only sometimes. This means most of the  
> time, their reflexes are the same as humans, but only sometimes speed up  
> to what they would actually be. Why? What's the point? Grrr. :-)

Because the fists are tweaked physics code, but the bullets are standard  
physics code and thus trajectories can be predicted. It appears only Neo  
can alter the physics outside of his embodiment.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message