So now the Matrix fans have their Phantom Menace?

I'm not sure what they need the energy for. Perhaps we'll find out in Revolutions. However, saying they could use another form of energy is like telling that to anyone. I could use my legs to get me to work but I prefer to let my car do the work.

Secondly, the stimulation in the Matrix probably lends itself to greater heat/energy output compared to mindless souls. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

 

I can't go into anymore detail at this point as we are not allowed but needless to say you do not understand Reloaded as well as you think Durwood.

Oh, I understand it just fine. I'm just amused at all the hoops you folks are having to jump through to explain away these inconsistencies. It's fun to watch!

 

I'm of the opinion that the agents *don't* know the real purpose of "The One" - they're just told to defend the system. Just like there is a program that controls the behavior of pigeons, why couldn't there be a program that controls the behavior of agents (which could tie into one of the plot developments of Agent Smith)?

EDIT:

Oh, I understand it just fine. I'm just amused at all the hoops you folks are having to jump through to explain away these inconsistencies. It's fun to watch!

Like the explanations for the "thousand years/thousand generations" inconsistency.

Like the explanations for how Yoda is "*the* Jedi Master who instructed me."

Like "General Kenobi."

Like "Your father wanted you to have this, when you were old enough."

Like "From a certain point of view."

This isn't meant to instigate an argument, it's just meant to demonstrate that these little explanations can be leveled at the PT as well, so no one can really claim the high road.

 

Yep. A Star Wars film without plot holes just ain't a Star Wars film.

 

"My point being that if someone has a real issue with the Matrix sequels, why not give the Matrix fans a chance to defend "their" films?"

Because its not their film, anymore then SW is ours. We all paid to see it we all have equal right to discuss it. This place is just for fun, its a distraction, if people are having fun who cares what they are talking about?

 

This isn't meant to instigate an argument, it's just meant to demonstrate that these little explanations can be leveled at the PT as well, so no one can really claim the high road.

While I disagree with some of the "contradictions" in your list (I like to call them misconceptions), I agree with the overall point, which is all I was really getting at.

 

The difference between M2R & TPM:

TPM is a children's film - and it is a brilliant children's film.

M2R is an adult film but it is a bad adult film.

 

agreed.

how does aotc and matrix1 fit into that though?

 

M2R is an adult film but it is a bad adult film.

I never thought I'd hear Admiral Ackbar say this. I don't like him anymore! Just kiddin'

I don't know, I still like Reloaded and I actually enjoyed the talkier parts of the movie. And in comparison to TPM, I personally would rather have 100 digital Agent Smiths than 100 digital Jar Jars.

That gives me an idea -- I would love to see Jar Jar die in Bullet Time in Episode III. Or maybe Neo vs. 100 Jar Jars.

 

Here's my $.02, all IMHO:

I don't think Matrix Reloaded is even close to being the Matrix fans' version of TPM to disappointed SW fans, for these reasons:

Reloaded is a direct sequel to The Matrix. TPM is a prequel to 3 films, which means that lot more continuity was established, and therefore a lot more expectations were built for TPM to live up to that continuity.

The Matrix is very much a concept-driven film, in which the characters are secondary to the concept. Fans can still like the Matrix characters of Morpheus, Neo, and Trinity and think they are "cool," but even staunch Matrix fans that I know will freely admit that the characters don't genuinely endear themselves much to the audience. What grabbed people about the Matrix was the concept.

IMHO Star Wars, while also very conceptual, is far more character driven -- with characters (Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, Artoo, Threepio, Obi-Wan, Vader, etc.) so vivid and appealing that fans fell in love with them. I think it was the characters as much as the concept that really drew in the fans. One of the main criticisms of TPM that I have heard from SW fans that disliked it was the lack of interesting characterization. For reasons outlined above, I feel that this was a much bigger expectation for SW fans than for Matrix fans.

As for which film damaged the overall concept of the previous film(s) more, that also is very much a matter of opinion. With Reloaded, I didn't think the concept of the original was damaged much at all -- it just didn't add as much to the mythology of the first film as I thought it could. However, I am not a huge Matrix aficionado, so maybe the concept was compromised in Reloaded and I just didn't see it. But I do know that with TPM, the SW fans that rejected it really felt that it damaged some of the concepts established and cherished in the OT.

Therefore, to answer the question posed by the thread, I just don't see Reloaded as being an unhappy Matrix fan's TPM to their SW. More like an ANH fan not liking ESB, or an ESB fan not liking RotJ. As Hawk said, the backlash against TPM was HUGE, including on these boards (I was there in '99 as well, but had to re-register in '01 after losing my old ID), and it dwarfed any dissent I've seen about Reloaded.

 

While I disagree with some of the "contradictions" in your list (I like to call them misconceptions), I agree with the overall point, which is all I was really getting at.

You were saying something about hoops and jumping through them?

Or maybe Neo vs. 100 Jar Jars.

That had to be the funniest image, seeing the fight scene recreated with 100 Jar Jars, all getting hit in the same way Smith was in Reloaded while acting very "Jar Jar-ish."

 

I post on 4 other non Star Wars related message boards and the overall opinion on Reloaded has been terrible.

"It really sucks." Is the most common description I hear about the film.

Guess I'll be skipping this one. Personally I'd rather spend my $10 bucks on something more entertaining like a couple of X-Box rentals and a box of snowcaps.

 

Very perceptive VCT. Each series, including LOTR, have their similarities, but I agree that the Matrix is more concept driven and SW is more character driven. Though I do really like the characters/character development of the PT.

What do you think about LOTR? IMO, LOTR is more plot driven, in that it centers around the ultimate goal of destroying the one ring.

Again, great post VCT!

EDIT: My experience with MR is that there were those who didn't like it as much as the first, but still enjoyed it. Then there were those like me, who found it to be mind-blowing.

 

Saw it the first time at a 10 PM showing last Wednesday, and I had an "it was okay" opinion. Saw it again on Friday, and it was a whole other experience. I loved it. Guess I was just tired that night or something, but regardless, I thought it was a fantastic film. The original is still better, but I think I may end up enjoying Reloaded more as time goes on.

Kudos to the Wachowski's, even if Larry is a transexeual Roll on with Revolutions.

 

Durwood,

I'm confused. What are the plot holes in Reloaded? We explained the Agents even though you were CONFUSED as to why they were trying to kill Neo. You obviously didn't grasp this point. Secondly, you have not taken up my offer to discuss this film where it belongs - in Community where there is a thread.

 

My brother-in-law who loved the Matrix, said The Matrix was much better then Reloaded. Did not like Reloaded at all.

 

Your brother in law sounds a lot like me.

 

I'm confused. What are the plot holes in Reloaded? We explained the Agents even though you were CONFUSED as to why they were trying to kill Neo. You obviously didn't grasp this point. Secondly, you have not taken up my offer to discuss this film where it belongs - in Community where there is a thread.

No, I wasn't confused. As I explained, I had a theory as you have yours, but they ultimately sound like sloppy solutions to an inconsistency. But whatever.

As for your offer to discuss the films, unlike STAR WARS bashers, I don't particularly enjoy indepth discussions about films I'm not too fond of. So thanks but no thanks.

 

No, I wasn't confused. As I explained, I had a theory as you have yours, but they ultimately sound like sloppy solutions to an inconsistency. But whatever.

Care to back that up? How is it sloppy or inconsistant that the Agents do what they are PROGRAMMED to do? Where is the inconsistency and how is this sloppy?

 

As for your offer to discuss the films, unlike STAR WARS bashers, I don't particularly enjoy indepth discussions about films I'm not too fond of. So thanks but no thanks.

Well, some Star Wars Bashers tend to back up what they say, rather than just allude to it and leave.

 

I still have not seen the Matrix: Reloaded, but I think I understand the logic behind Durwood's inconsistency. The pursuit of the agents in M:R contradicts the ending of the original movie. The end of the Matrix strongly shows that the agents are now powerless against Neo. He has reached god-like status in the virtual world. This is demonstrated by Smith's fellow agents. The two of them run away when Smith is "destroyed". For one thing, following by the "They were programmed logic": Weren't the agents programmed to take on Neo at the end of the Matrix? Instead, they fled. For another thing, in Matrix Reloaded, why would the agents, all of a sudden, come back and feel they can now take on Neo? From the trailer: "Do we proceed?" "Yes. He is still only human." It has also been shown that the computers obviously learn. Shouldn't the computers have learned that their regular agents have no chance against Neo? Perhaps this is the reasoning for the Twins. I'll have to wait until Sunday before I can back this up.

Loco: Yes, but you've had four years now. I think you've had enough time to back up your arguments. No worries, though; I think I'm gonna start up a good ole fashioned debate soon.

Cometgreen

 

"As for your offer to discuss the films, unlike STAR WARS bashers, I don't particularly enjoy indepth discussions about films I'm not too fond of. So thanks but no thanks."

but "STAR WARS bashers" ARE fond of Star Wars films... its the new lame additions to the saga they are not too fond of, and thats why they discuss where it went wrong and why. you seem to enjoy "discussing" how shallow the matrix films are... well that is until you are challenged to back up your "argument". then you DUCK and RUN.

 

Well now, Durwood's question about the Agents is answered in the trailers... "Hmm, upgrades."
There is another point of mention, but I'm not sure if this is "spoiler" territory or not.

Are you thinking that the Agents should stop their pursuit of the humans just because they lost to Neo in the first film?!
The Agents should stop fighting the humans because Neo might show up and wipe the floor with them?!

Using that logic, Sidious should have given up after Maul was sliced in half. I'm sure Lucas could have added some scenes with Sidious writing in his diary... "I lost my well trained apprentice to a PADAWAN! I can't believe this!! I'm too old for this poodoo, I'd better just quit while I'm ahead! I don't want Obi-Wan Kenobi after me!"

Using that logic, the Empire should have just surrendered to the Rebels after Luke destroyed the Death Star!
If one naturally gifted (Sorry, Force gifted due to his lineage & Midichlorian count ) farmboy can destroy their finest battle station, then the Empire should have realized their war with the Rebels was in vain!
Maybe that's why Vader never says he's looking for Luke Skywalker specifically, he's afraid if he tells his fleet, they'll chicken out and turn around!

As for your offer to discuss the films, unlike STAR WARS bashers, I don't particularly enjoy indepth discussions about films I'm not too fond of. So thanks but no thanks.

Yeah, but you can ask questions (presented as plot holes) about them and complain about their "simplicity" without caring to explain the "simplicity" in a non-spoiler forum.
In my best Keanu imitation, all I can say is, "Whatever, dude."

I'm sure you found The Matrix films very simplistic, so I guess you needn't be bothered with explaining this "simplicity" to the rest of us mere mortals, at least, so that we can marvel at your superior intelligence! Hmmm?

Come on, explain the simplicity to us so we can all go "WHOA!" in unison. Enlighten us. Destroy our blissful ignorance and make us sadly educated.

 

My main point was trying to show that the "they were programmed" point does not work well with the first Matrix. If they just follow by their programming that they must destroy Neo and his ilk, why did they disobey such programming and run away in the original Matrix? I guess I ended up talking too much about other points, however.

"Well now, Durwood's question about the Agents is answered in the trailers"

I like the words of Steven Colbert: Everything is much better in trailer form. I loved AOTC, but I think the trailers were much better.

Cometgreen

 

Loco: Yes, but you've had four years now. I think you've had enough time to back up your arguments.

I present my opinions with some things that were actually shown, ie Art of Star Wars books etc. Granted, I'm not as good as some of the others here, but I haven't turned and ran out of an argument or used a cop-out line like "It's GL's story" or the classic "I'd like to see you create a six part saga that makes millions of dollars." So yeah, I'm have a lot to catch up on. LOL

No worries, though; I think I'm gonna start up a good ole fashioned debate soon.

Sounds like fun.