Everthing Matrix!! (Reloaded/Revolutions Spoilers!)

Oh, and as to the Architect's speech, these were his main points:

1. Neo is not unique, there were several others like him.

2. Neo and his seven predecessors were created by the Architect as a final measure to keep the Matrix under control (and the humans enslaved).

3. They fulfill this function by being leaders of the humans fake revolution. (For this point, I'll make an analogy to AOTC, since it is a SW board. The Architect is basically saying that he's like Dooku, and Neo is like the Trade Federation. That is, even though both think they're leading a real rebellion, they're actually pawns for the very person they are trying to defeat). Periodically, this fake revolution is killed, and restarted with a new "the One."

4. At the end of Reloaded, it's time for the fake revolution to be restarted, which is why the machines are destroying Zion. Neo must now restart the fake revolution by picking out some ~25 new people to start a new Zion. If he fails to do this, then he will not fulfill his role, and thus he will cause the Matrix to basically self-destruct and all humans within it to die.

5. Neo cannot save Trinity and restart the fake revolution at the same time. So, essentially, saving Trinity (which he chooses) will cause the entire Matrix to meltdown/self-destruct. Since the machines will destroy Zion, this will mean the destruction of all of humanity.


My thanks. But why must there be a cycle, a fake human revolution in the first place; and I don't understand your point 2, I'm afraid. How does a Neo or past 7 keep the Matrix under control?

Thanks

 

Cause every so often, there happen to be glitches so to speak that come up within the Matrix. It's just like any other programmed system, or 'ghosts in the machine' as it were. Morpheus makes it clear when he's talking with the Councilman. "Over the past ... years we've freed more minds than ever before."

This is the cue that there's something wrong with the programming and it needs to be updated. That's why there's a need for the reboot.

 

(the first movie asked questions, the following two shoved "answers" down our throats)

Huh? The most common complaint I see about the sequels is that they're too open-ended, that there aren't enough answers given to the questions brought up.

The first movie was not as profound as many people make it out to be. It was a brilliant and beautiful film yes, but nowhere near as indepth as the sequels. The original Matrix presents us with only a single, flat dimension of the story - Reloaded brings in a second, and Revolutions, finally, makes everything whole and three-dimensional.

In a nutshell, the biggest mistake made in the sequels was that they were about Zion and not the Matrix. We're not in Zion. We're in the Matrix. The first movie was about us, the sequels weren't, and that is where they failed.

If by "us" you are referring to humanity in general, than I truly don't follow. The sequels were probably more about humanity than the first one - whether "we" are plugged into the Matrix or free in Zion we're all in the same boat, all facing the same threat, as Revolutions makes so clear. Myself, I loved the more "real-world" focus the sequels provided, because I think that's where the heart of the movies lies. That's what distinguished the original Matrix movie from generic sci-fi, what gave it its uniqueness. If you wanted more of "the rebels and their plight", exploring Zion is the natural progression. I don't understand why you would want the human element of the story to stagnate by not taking it there.

 

Excellence

Basically, Neo and the other "Ones" help keep the Matrix under control in the following way. I will continue to try and draw SW parallels, since that might help.

1. The goal of the machines is to get 100% of humans to accept the Matrix, since this would maximize their power output. However, some humans keep refusing to accept the Matrix, seemingly no matter what. The analogy is that in AOTC, Palpatine's goal is to control the entire Galaxy. We know from AOTC's opneing, though, that people are fed up with the Republic, and so even though Palpatine is Chancellor, a lot of people want to break off (the Separatists).

2. In order to get 100% acceptance, the machines co-opt the revolution. That is, they install someone (the One) who is essentially their unwitting agent to command the people who don't accept the Matrix. Because of the One's powers, those who accept the Matrix will listen to him. And because the machines control him, they effectively control the humans who revolt against the Matrix. Thus, their goal is (in a way) accomplished.

In the same way, Palpatine got control of the situation in AOTC by recruiting Dooku. Because Dooku is so powerful and respected, the Separatists will listen to him. But since Dooku really works for Palpatine, Palpatine is actually controlling the Separatists (the peopel who want to rebel against him).

3. Eventually, even though they are in control of the leaders of the revolution, it gets so big that they won't be able to control it much longer. When that happens, the machines kill everyone in the current revolution, and start the process back over again with "the One."

As we know, even though Palpatine is still controlling the entire Galaxy in AOTC, he similarly kilsl his fake revolution in ROTS. Admittedly, here the analogy is weakest, since he never restarts the cycle like the machines do in the Matrix.

And as to how, exactly, the Ones keep the Matrix under control, you've got me. My best analogy would be your waste disposal system in your body. That is, after your body has processed things, it gets rid of the byproducts (by making you go to bathroom). Eventually, these byproducts have to get out of your body, or else they will kill you. In the same way, the Ones are like the "byproducts" and the Matrix is like the "body." If they don't get out of the Matrix eventually, they will kill it. When its time for them to get out, that's when the cycle restarts.

Violet, you can very easily write a story stressing plot over theme. As you pointed out, there are plenty of mindless movies made all the time.

BTW, I too usually like a bit more from my movies. However, I don't appreciate it when they sacrifice everything else in the movie just to get the "little bit more." That's like a student failing the normal work so they can do the extra credit. It just doens't cut it. Especially when there are so many films whose thematic and philosophical concerns are so well integrated.

I agree with Dorkman's second and third paragraph.

 

You've undone a year of confusion in one post for me.

 

DorkmanScott, I have only four words for you:

Watch The Matrix Revisited.

 

Huh? The most common complaint I see about the sequels is that they're too open-ended, that there aren't enough answers given to the questions brought up.

Oh, they're answering them. They're telling us what to think instead of letting us derive the notions on our own. The only question most of those long-winded speeches raised for me was "But why should I care?"

The first movie was not as profound as many people make it out to be. It was a brilliant and beautiful film yes, but nowhere near as indepth as the sequels.

You don't find a film that caused an entire generation to question the very nature of reality to be profound?

Define profound.

The original Matrix presents us with only a single, flat dimension of the story - Reloaded brings in a second, and Revolutions, finally, makes everything whole and three-dimensional.

I disagree. The story got more cliched, more black-and-white, and more predictable as the films bore (and I use the word intentionally) on.

If by "us" you are referring to humanity in general, than I truly don't follow. The sequels were probably more about humanity than the first one - whether "we" are plugged into the Matrix or free in Zion we're all in the same boat, all facing the same threat, as Revolutions makes so clear.

"Us" is the humanity trapped in the Matrix. Slaves to the machines.

Name one "blue pill" freed in the sequels. Hell, name one "blue pill" FEATURED in the sequels.

In the Matrix, the freeminds interacted only with each other (or programs), fought each other (or programs), made out with each other (or programs). There was no representative of the audience in the films, and in the end, the slaves of the Matrix -- who should have been the CENTRAL concern of the films -- were freed as an AFTERTHOUGHT.

Myself, I loved the more "real-world" focus the sequels provided, because I think that's where the heart of the movies lies.

The heart of the original lies in questioning what we BELIEVE to be the real world. Which the sequels did not do, and therefore failed in their promise to expand upon the original.

That's what distinguished the original Matrix movie from generic sci-fi, what gave it its uniqueness.

Actually, there's pretty much nothing unique about the original Matrix. Similar ideas were explored in no less than two movies released within a year of the Matrix, Dark City and The Thirteenth Floor. It's a compilation of many, many sources, particularly if you are at all familiar with Japanese animation (check out "Metropolis" sometime).

If you wanted more of "the rebels and their plight", exploring Zion is the natural progression.

Yes, but the story wasn't about "the rebels and their plight." The story was about "humanity's enslavement to technology," in which Zion has a much smaller place.

I don't understand why you would want the human element of the story to stagnate by not taking it there.

It REMOVED the human element, because it removed our part in the story.

M. Scott

 

Dorkman, I wish you'd be a bit more specific instead of making these broad, overreaching generalizations. Maybe then this conversation would be a bit more constructive.

It seems to me that you were so intent on the sequels aligning with your own particular vision of what you wanted them to be, that you are unable to clearly see and appreciate what the Wachowskis have given us instead: which is just as valid and worthwhile.

You keep insisting upon what could have been, instead of objectively viewing what is.

I can understand this method of thinking, but it gets us nowhere in the long run.

Oh, they're answering them. They're telling us what to think instead of letting us derive the notions on our own. The only question most of those long-winded speeches raised for me was "But why should I care?"

Can you show me how exactly we were told what to think in any one of those 'speeches'? That's an honest question. I'm curious.

It seems to me that the first Matrix film deliberately shaped our perceptions moreso than the last two. In M1, the machines are bad, humanity is good, we must defeat and destroy the evil machines so humanity can be free, etc.

Reloaded turns that notion on its head. Suddenly the Oracle herself is a program. We meet programs who are in exile, hiding away from the powers that be to save themselves. We realize that not all machines are against humanity, and furthermore, it is revealed that humans started the war to begin with. To add fuel to the fire, hints are dropped all over the place that humanity cannot survive without machines, and vice versa. Destroy one, and you destroy the other. "So we need machines and machines need us. Is that your point, Councillor?" / "I'm interested in one thing, Neo: the future. And believe me I know, the only way to get there is together."

Shades of grey are being introduced everywhere in Reloaded: nothing is as clear-cut as it seemed at the end of the original Matrix. I won't even touch Revolutions for the time being: that one's my favorite and I'd inevitably end up babbling on forever about it.

Name one "blue pill" freed in the sequels. Hell, name one "blue pill" FEATURED in the sequels.

The films are Neo's story. He is the "blue pill" featured: he is unplugged in the first movie, and in the sequels we follow him as he steps out into a larger world. I don't know why you would want to sidetrack the development of his journey by suddenly focusing on another "splintered mind". The first film already so brilliantly showed us the methods the rebels take to free a mind, and the aftereffects. Why rehash this at the expense of the larger story being told?

There are plenty of other "blue pill" stories in the Animatrix and Comics, if that's what you're looking for. That's why they were made: to explore more esoteric tangents without disrupting the main flow of the story. They complement the sequels quite nicely, and are brilliant short stories in their own right.

The heart of the original lies in questioning what we BELIEVE to be the real world. Which the sequels did not do, and therefore failed in their promise to expand upon the original.

You're right. The original is chiefly concerned with the nature of reality. But that's just it: the cat's out of the bag by the end of the movie - we know what the Matrix is. We know the truth. It would make no sense to beat it into our heads again in the next two (unless you are one of those Matrix-in-a-Matrix theorists: I won't touch that one with a ten-foot pole ). They sequels, naturally, are concerned with bigger things. At the end of the original, the question we are left with is: where do we go from here? Where does Neo go from here? That's what the sequels address.

M1: the nature of reality.
M2: the nature of purpose.
M3: the nature of identity.

Actually, there's pretty much nothing unique about the original Matrix. Similar ideas were explored in no less than two movies released within a year of the Matr

 

"...you were so intent on the sequels aligning with your own particular vision of what you wanted them to be..."

I agree with Violet here whole-heartedly. Some fans seem to have wanted the first film to be remade two times, because that's what most sequels are, right? These films were written together as a true trilogy, and operate as a trilogy on many levels, beyond just the Lucas approach to trilogies as "acts" with repeated themes.

As Violet says, there is actually much more going on philosophically in M2 and M3, but most people fail to notice it, because they seem to want more of the "brain in a vat" theory, as if that were the only thing about the Matrix or Philosophy in general, and as if the first film didn't drive the point home clearly enough.

The dumbed-down descriptions above from some posters are laughable, as they totally miss the import of what is happening. Hint: the upshot of both Zion and the machine world is that they are not real. When you go on and on about Reloaded and Revolutions not being as philosophical the first one, then you are missing all the clues which destroy that simplistic impression.

Beyond the entertainment layers, M2 and M3 are actually hard - hard to figure out, and perhaps, hard to appreciate by the mass culture. The first film is easy for anyone to understand and like, at least on the first few levels. I always remember what Cornell West said while filming Reloaded and Revolutions, something like: "There are 40 layers going on in these films. Some people only come away appreciating 1 or 5, others can appreciate all 40."

 

These films were written together as a true trilogy

If you believe that, you're delusional.

And I didn't want the Wachowskis to specifically make anything except good films, which they failed to do.

I even let Reloaded slide on the hope that Revolutions would save it, and it didn't. The fact that one of the directors himself (I think it was Andy) told an industry insider at the premiere of Revolutions "Don't expect much" speaks volumes to me.

The first film they had a good producer who stepped in every once in a while and made them solve problems creatively instead of throwing money at it. After the success of the original, Joel Silver came on worshipping the ground the Wachowskis walked on, the studios gave them all the money they asked for, and they had the freedom to make all the dumb first-thought choices that they'd been prevented from making in the first. For some examples of what I mean, read some early drafts of the script.

I'm glad that some of you found a way to feel like the films were worth your time and money. As for myself, I'm all too able to see them for what they are.

M. Scott

 

If you believe that, you're delusional.

If you don't believe it, you're uninformed. Ask anyone involved in Bound, any WB exec, watch Revisited like I'd previously recommended to you, and you'll hear the same thing from everyone: the Wachowskis have been gabbing about this "sci-fi trilogy idea" of theirs for years. It's why they did Bound in the first place: to prove they could direct so they could make their pet concept a reality. They originally pitched it to WB as a trilogy, but WB said "let's just try one first". (And that isn't just hear-say; it's the WB suit they first talked to relaying the story). That's why they decided to do the two sequels at once, because they knew where they were going and the studio was willing to trust them the rest of the way.

The first film they had a good producer who stepped in every once in a while and made them solve problems creatively instead of throwing money at it. After the success of the original, Joel Silver came on worshipping the ground the Wachowskis walked on

Uh, Joel Silver produced the first film too.

And the Wachowskis are probably the most specific directors you'll ever see. Nothing they do isn't exacted or pored over many times. Again, watch Revisited. It's one of the most revealing (not to mention entertaining) documentaries on the filmmaking/creative process I've seen.

As for early drafts of the script, the only significant "first-thought" choice they removed was the hinting of there being 5 Ones before Neo. They instead chose to reveal this point in the second film.

And nobody but the Wachowskis had any say in the scripts. I don't know where you got that idea.

The fact that one of the directors himself (I think it was Andy) told an industry insider at the premiere of Revolutions "Don't expect much" speaks volumes to me.

It wasn't an "industry insider", he said that to Bernard White who played Rama-Kandra in Revolutions. Quoting from White's essay on Revolutions, "[his] simple and humble instruction to us was not to have 'high expectations'."

Besides the fact that Andy and Larry have no ego whatsoever (when asked "do you know you've changed the way people look at cinema?" after the release of the first film, they replied, "Really?"), I can see exactly why he told Bernard to not have high expectations. What was everyone expecting going into Revolutions? That the machines were going to be destroyed and humanity was going to be freed. C'mon, don't say you didn't. I did too. That was everyone's expectation, and it was shattered. And 90% of people reacted negatively to that shattering.

The Brothers knew this movie would throw people for a loop, and many people wouldn't like the loop they were being thrown, and would thus respond negatively. They knew it wouldn't please everybody, so what's the best advice to give to someone going in to see it for the first time? Rid yourself of expectation.

The Brothers have said many times that they are completely happy with the theatrical versions of the films - for the upcoming 10-disc set there will be no "extended edition" nor any deleted scenes, because there aren't any. The storyboarding was that tight.

Furthermore, quoting from Digital Bits: "There will be two audio commentaries for each film - one from philosophers Ken Wilber and Cornel West (who analyze the meanings behind the films), and one from three professional critics who hated all three films (no names given). According to Andy Wachowski, "It's the best idea we've ever had. It's hilarious. They just sit there and rip the sh!t out of us for six hours."

That doesn't sound to me like artists lacking confidence in their work. Heck, they came up with and suggested the idea to WB, who were initially abhorred.

Whew. All that to say... what? That the sequels are worth your time? Nah, I know I can't change your opinion Dorkman, and I respect your dislike of the last

 

the Wachowskis have been gabbing about this "sci-fi trilogy idea" of theirs for years. It's why they did Bound in the first place: to prove they could direct so they could make their pet concept a reality. They originally pitched it to WB as a trilogy, but WB said "let's just try one first". (And that isn't just hear-say; it's the WB suit they first talked to relaying the story). That's why they decided to do the two sequels at once, because they knew where they were going and the studio was willing to trust them the rest of the way.

Having the idea of a trilogy, pitching it as a trilogy, okay. Sure. I believe that. But that doesn't mean the scripts were written together. Because the sequels were nowhere near as polished.

Uh, Joel Silver produced the first film too.

I'm sorry, I was slightly mistaken. I was thinking of Barrie Osbourne, who executive produced the first one then bowed out to do LOTR. (When asked what went wrong with the sequels, he answered "I didn't produce them.")

And the Wachowskis are probably the most specific directors you'll ever see. Nothing they do isn't exacted or pored over many times. Again, watch Revisited. It's one of the most revealing (not to mention entertaining) documentaries on the filmmaking/creative process I've seen.

Just because they micromanage everything on the set doesn't mean that their ideas are good. Besides, if they're so careful about it then why are so many of the FX shots in the original AND sequels allowed to be so sloppy?

As for early drafts of the script, the only significant "first-thought" choice they removed was the hinting of there being 5 Ones before Neo. They instead chose to reveal this point in the second film.

What? Which draft is that in? Have you read early drafts or are you just saying what you've heard?

How about the part where, after Neo resurrects at the end, instead of jumping into and destroying Smith, he flips the Agents the bird and runs away? That sound like a good idea?

And nobody but the Wachowskis had any say in the scripts. I don't know where you got that idea.

In the original Matrix, the executive producers made them change a lot because they held the money. That's how Hollywood works with still-unproven directors. After the original made a mint, THEN the Wachowskis were given total control, which was a huge mistake.

The Brothers have said many times that they are completely happy with the theatrical versions of the films - for the upcoming 10-disc set there will be no "extended edition" nor any deleted scenes, because there aren't any. The storyboarding was that tight.

Just because the directors are happy with it doesn't mean it's any good. I'm sure Paul W.S. Anderson was perfectly happy with the choices he made in Resident Evil and AvP, or the guy who did Exorcist: The Beginning thinks he did a great job. But they're still bad movies.

Furthermore, quoting from Digital Bits: "There will be two audio commentaries for each film - one from philosophers Ken Wilber and Cornel West (who analyze the meanings behind the films), and one from three professional critics who hated all three films (no names given). According to Andy Wachowski, "It's the best idea we've ever had. It's hilarious. They just sit there and rip the sh!t out of us for six hours."

That doesn't sound to me like artists lacking confidence in their work.

Sounds to me more like yahoos who don't take it seriously enough.

Whew. All that to say... what? That the sequels are worth your time? Nah, I know I can't change your opinion Dorkman, and I respect your dislike of the last two films. I just felt the need to clear up some factual issues so that others are not misinformed.

Likewise.

M. Scott

 

DorkmanScott, no personal offense intended, but it just sounds like you simply didn't like M2 and M3, but like most people in these bashing-dominated forums, you mistake that personal judgement for objective fact about the work in question. Your view is an opinion, and nothing more.

I wasn't wild about M2 or M3 either, even after several viewings, but after reflecting on them, came around to letting go of my own preconditions of what they were supposed to be. These films deserve far more credit than you are willing to give, and if you disliked them so strongly, why come into forums and go on and on about it? Go watch the OC and be blissful

 

Besides, if they're so careful about it then why are so many of the FX shots in the original AND sequels allowed to be so sloppy?

Because this is filmmaking straining against the limits of technology. They are doing things FX wise that have never been done before, and the methods of accomplishing these shots are still in their baby steps. Universal Capture is one of them. It allowed the Bros to get the type of dynamic they wanted from certain scenes, even if it wasn't perfect. And I guess that's a sacrifice they were willing to make in the larger scope of things.

What? Which draft is that in? Have you read early drafts or are you just saying what you've heard?

1997 draft:

-------------------

CYPHER
This ain't the first time Morpheus thought he found the One.

NEO
Really?

CYPHER
You bet your a**. It keeps him going. Maybe it keeps all of us going.

NEO
How many were there?

CYPHER
Five. Since I've been here.

......

MORPHEUS
Faith is beyond the reach of whys and why nots. These things are not a matter of cause and effect, Neo. I do not believe things with my mind. I believe them with my heart. In my gut.

NEO
And you still believe I'm the One?

MORPHEUS
Yes I do.

NEO
Yeah? What about the other five guys? The five before me? What about them?

Morpheus tries to hide his heart being wrenched from his
chest.

-------------------

Obviously placed in a different context, but the idea of Neo and the rest of the rebels being victims to a repeating cycle is still there.

As for the 1996 ending, which can be read here btw, I personally think it's hilarious. Obviously the Bros were planning on having Agent Smith back and that's why they didn't "kill" him at first. But the way they eventually ended up doing it just added to and complemented the "positive/negative" "your own dark side" theme they were setting up with the sequels.

I think it's kinda cool to see how these core ideas have evolved into their final incarnations.

In the original Matrix, the executive producers made them change a lot because they held the money.

First of all, Larry and Andy were executive producers on the first film along with Osborne, Mason, Stoff and Berman.

They were all quite confident in the 1998 shooting script but the studio required them to cut out an underground tunnel sequence because of budget tightness. WB also wanted to cut out the helicopter sequence, but everyone pushed for that one to stay.

Nothing, storywise, was changed.

Sounds to me more like yahoos who don't take it seriously enough.

Yeah, that's why Larry agreed to do a public 30-minute talk with philosopher Ken Wilber on the nature of interpretation in regards to the Matrix films. He and Andy find the criticism interesting in contrast with other more "integral" interpretations, which is why they vouched to do the two different commentaries - to distinguish between the thought processes that go on in each.

Is it such a stretch to think that the Wachowski Brothers might be invested artists who know their work?

 

The SciFiWire posted this:

New Matrix DVDs Due

Warner Home Video will release a 10-disc Ultimate Matrix Collection DVD set on Dec. 7, featuring the three Matrix movies with new supplemental materials, including new commentary tracks on each movie. The set will also include a remastered version of the first film, The Matrix, as well as the companion pieces The Matrix Revisited and The Animatrix.

The collection will include five discs of new supplemental materials that encompass every aspect of the Matrix universe, Enter the Matrix video-game footage and more than 100 featurettes and documentaries.

The Ultimate Matrix Collection will carry a suggested retail price of $79.92. A limited edition of The Ultimate Matrix Collection will feature a Neo minibust figurine and an 80-page collector's book, with a suggested retail price of $129.92.

 

Recent observations after viewing the Matrix Trilogy in one sitting:

- Neo, Trinity and Smith all die twice

- Morpheus gives a huge speech to Neo in THE MATRIX about "What is real? How do you define real?" and then at the end of THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS when the war is over, he says to Niobe, "Is this real?"

I think the second one is particularly neat. And I'm sure the first observation means something, but maybe it's just coincidence.

Who knows? But I do look forward to the set coming out this Tuesday the 7th, and I am seriously considering buying them, mainly for the commentary.

 

The heart of the original lies in questioning what we BELIEVE to be the real world. Which the sequels did not do, and therefore failed in their promise to expand upon the original.

I like the first part of this statement, and I agree with you. The reason that I prefer the original Matrix is that it was so....unique. And I have seen Dark city, and Thirteenth floor, I like them both but there is just something more proverbial and deep about the Matrix. Any movie that makes you question reality really appeals to me, its just such a foreign concept to what I have been brought up to be my understanding that is why I am fascinated by it. Anyway, just dropping in yet again. I will try to keep up with the conversation.

Forcebewitya.

 

The Matrix movies have lost all credibility they ever had with me, as have the Wachowski brothers.

Taken from this site:

"Mother of the Matrix" Victorious
By Martha Carter
Published: Thursday, October 28, 2004
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 2Next Page


Monday, October 4th 2004 ended a six-year dispute involving Sophia Stewart, the Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and Warner Brothers. Stewart's allegations, involving copyright infringement and racketeering, were received and acknowledged by the Central District of California, Judge Margaret Morrow residing.

Stewart, a New Yorker who has resided in Salt Lake City for the past five years, will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels. She will soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood, as the gross receipts of both films and their sequels total over 2.5 billion dollars.

Stewart filed her case in 1999, after viewing the Matrix, which she felt had been based on her manuscript, "The Third Eye," copyrighted in 1981. In the mid-eighties Stewart had submitted her manuscript to an ad placed by the Wachowski Brothers, requesting new sci-fi works.

According to court documentation, an FBI investigation discovered that more than thirty minutes had been edited from the original film, in attempt to avoid penalties for copyright infringement. The investigation also stated that "credible witnesses employed at Warner Brothers came forward, claiming that the executives and lawyers had full knowledge that the work in question did not belong to the Wachowski Brothers." These witnesses claimed to have seen Stewart's original work and that it had been "often used during preparation of the motion pictures."
The defendants tried, on several occasions, to have Stewart's case dismissed, without success.

Stewart has confronted skepticism on all sides, much of which comes from Matrix fans, who are strangely loyal to the Wachowski Brothers. One on-line forum, entitled Matrix Explained has an entire section devoted to Stewart. Some who have researched her history and writings are open to her story. Others are suspicious and mocking. "It doesn't bother me," said Stewart in a phone interview last week, "I always knew what was true."

Some fans, are unaware of the case or they question its legitimacy, due to the fact that it has received little to no media coverage. Though the case was not made public until October of 2003, Stewart has her own explanation, as quoted at daghettotymz.com:

"The reason you have not seen any of this in the media is because Warner Brothers parent company is AOL-Time Warner... this GIANT owns 95 percent of the media... let me give you a clue as to what they own in the media business... New York Times papers/magazines, LA Times papers/magazines, People Magazine, CNN news, Extra, Celebrity Justice, Entertainment Tonight, HBO, New Line Cinema, Dreamworks, Newsweek, Village Roadshow... many, many more!... They are not going to report on themselves. They have been surpressing my case for years..."

Smooth move, Wachowski brothers.

 

All of a sudden I feel strangely vindicated in hating these films.

This also puts a real funny dent in the idea that the Wachowskis used anime films such as Ghost in the Shell as inspiration.

-P!-

 

Since I don't consider myself a Matrix fanboy I am looking at this from an outsiders view. I defenitley enjoyed Reloaded more than the Matrix, and I consider Revolutions to be equal or if not a little better than the first film. The reason people like the first film so much is because it is not as intellectually stimulating, challenging, and does not ask the viewer to make up their mind about the questions in the movie. I find Reloaded to be a action and thought provoking film wrapped into one, it defenitley is the deepest of the three and it requires many repeat viewings. Reloaded reminds me of Vanilla Sky and how it is unfairly trashed by critics I find both of them to very stimulating experiences, and when I watch them I usually end up wanting to watch them again to catch something I had not the previous time. Every time I watch those films I pick up on something I have not before.

 

The whole mother of the matrix thing is nonsense, she hasnt and wont win anything.

I cant belive the PA guys put that up without actually looking into it, as its now all over the internet and everyone is accepting it as fact. it doesnt help that that article is clearly biased in Stewart's favour, anyway, see what Neil Gaiman has to say on the matter:

http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004/12/urban-legends.asp

 

Erm, the Gaiman article doesn't say anything about Stewart's claim being baloney, as you said it did. It says that she MAY have a case, and we'll have to see what happens.

Frankly, considering how liberally the Wachowski Brothers lifted ideas and content from other sources and mediums in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if Stewart wins.

 

"Erm, the Gaiman article doesn't say anything about Stewart's claim being baloney, as you said it did."

I didnt say he did, but come on, its rubbish, I'd bet all the money I have that she wont win anything.

"It says that she MAY have a case, and we'll have to see what happens."

No it doesnt, it says hes sure she wont win.

People just seem to want this to be true because of their disapointment in the sequels, which is ridiculous. The article is biased and misinformed, as gaiman points out.

 

"Ah well, if she has a case, best of luck to her."

I rest my case.

Frankly, as I stated before, it's clear that the Wachowskis lifted material from other sources. The thought that they may have plagarized the Matrix is hardly far-fetched. 'The Matrix' has more than a passing resemblance to the movie 'Dark City', which predates it, for example.

Also as stated before, we'll just have to see what happens. Discarding this as "rubbish" right away is more than a little naive.

 

I still enjoy the films, no matter who wrote them.