Talk:The Matrix (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Box office performance

Can someone check and varify the box office takings for 'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions'. According to the figures these two films grossed exactly the same amount of money in the States. Whilst this is possible the different 'domestic box office rankings' suggests that there is an error in the figures90.197.138.31 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Citation Not Valid?

The third citation, to the New York Metro review ... read it, and don't see anything about Neo asking questions. Has the wrong article been referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newagelink (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wire Fu

Removed references to the Matrix being the first "wire fu" film as it is not true. China had been producing "wire fu" movies for over a decade prior to the release of The Matrix. 206.188.55.212 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless?

"The trilogy is known as The Matrix Trilogy." Seriously? A small quibble, but is this even necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.59.90 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science?

The science section states:

The chemical energy required to keep a human being alive is vastly greater than the bio-electric or thermal energy that could be harvested; human beings, like all living beings, are not energy sources, but rather energy consumers.

I think that this is totally wrong. The law of Conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore humans are neither sources or consumers of energy, they just convert it from one form to another. JeremyA 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Very thoughtful on the law of conservation Jeremy. Bear this in mind though:

Do you recall in biology, that the sun has the most energy, which is transferred to plants, and that as you go along the food chain from plants to carnivores, the energyd decreases. No one is saying that the energy gets destroyed. Think of it in economic terms as: "it isn't very cost effective to run a machine off something biological". The author is simply stating that which a lot of scientists have calculated. Dessydes

Not only do I recall biology, I have a biology PhD. My physics, however, is a little rusty, but I am still convinced that the sentence that I quote is wrong. All the energy that a human extracts from food is eventually converted to heat. It is not used up, and therefore to label humans as "energy consumers" is wrong. JeremyA 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, humans consume energy with daily activities. If the only activity you have is lie in a pot with VR running in your brain you're not going to spend a lot of that energy. - the machines feed the humans, the humans metabolise (spelling?) the food, the machines must have found a way to harvest the energy from human bodies. Any ideas on this? VdSV9•♫ 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The electrical signals sent within the body for the motion commands should be too low and I guess it wouldn't make any sense to collect that energy. I think it was just the "thermal energy"...? VdSV9•♫ 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the reson why they give that simplistic explanation.Average population's noklege of physic's is proporsionnal to my speling.yes energy is ither created or destroid,but that don't mean that it is possible to do what you want.energy tends to dispurse evenly,USEFUL energy is lost for us but not for the universe.So a human body consumes(food) more usful energy that we can extract from it(thermoelectricity for example).The article corectly make's that distinction.Thermoelectricity efficiency is well below 1 so you can't run a perpetual mouvment that way.It's plain rubish,the power source explanation,it would have been more cost effective to simply burn the food in a thermic machine of some sort.But i can buy that we are in the "matrix" and thus the matrix physics are'nt the "real physics"(machines physics).--Ruber chiken 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

no ,even if you lie in a pot your efficiency is a catastrophy.The brain alone consumes 20% of your food all the time ,asleep or doing maths.And yes there are thermoelectric devices thet can transform a temparture difference directly in to electricity but efficiency are low(and expencive)--Ruber chiken 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If we knew the science behind the pods, perhaps then we would know the exact purpose of human use. Perhaps the pods include a system of transistors and amplifiers that work to enhance the productivity of the brain, and its output?--Cuardaim 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Humans do not generate energy. They can convert energy from one form into another (say glucose into ATP), but do so terribly inefficiently. The power source application from the Matrix is ridiculous. I'm a fan, but I recognize that this is impossible. I think the line "combined with a form of fusion" is clear evidence of the creators' acceptance that this is impossible (a "form" of a technology we don't possess). -alhead

Whoever included Ilya in this article does not understand his research. I am removing the section about Ilya because: 1- Most of it is plagerized from another article 2- It has very little to do with the article. Ilya's research is based upon a sustainable natural environment, not an artificial one that requires special conditions for energy. 3- Much of the research mentioned by the poster has absolutley nothing to do with energy production.

-Raidzuo


I removed the following paragraph that was tacked onto the end of the science section: "Again it states clearly in the films themselves that humans are batteries and used in conjunction with a form of nuclear fusion. Therefore they are not the actual original power source but a short term storage medium of some type." Adding it onto the end of the section is a very poor way of integrating it into the article. In any case, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. KhaTzek 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Matrix energy scheme

Reasons for energy producing scheme, described in Matrix could be not logical, but historical. At first. in real world, it could be invented simple virtual reality I/O devices. Then computers could became power supplied from bodies of their users. Then automatical food delivery system could be added. In this way, step by step, our modern world could evolute to Matrix world. So we would have machines, powered by human bodies despite the fact, that it is not the optimal scheme. Dims 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the AniMatrix? Sorry, but that's just not what happened. --Nerd42 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw some episodes, but what do you mean by saying 'happened'? Nothing is hapenned actually, it is a fantastic! :) Dims 08:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all the animatrix clearly explains the origins of the human power plant and the first matrix...also, Your syntax is so bizarre i really have no idea what you are saying.Solidusspriggan 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my English! I saw some animatrixes, but didn't find these reasons. May be they explained in other parts. What are they are? Anyway, Matrix, Animatrix and reality must not share the same model. Dims 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In the animatrix shorts called "The Second Renaissance Part 1" outlines the rise of the machines and "The Second Renaissance Part 2" shows the fall of humanity. The animmatrix and the matrix movies do share the same models and certain Animatrices even tie directly into matrix reloaded "Kid Story" shows how The Kid was saved and "Final Flight of the Osiris" is referred to by Niobe during the captain's meeting in reloaded when she speaks about "these geotherms confirm....". Solidusspriggan 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So, using your knowledge, can you explain, why machines use human power, while they have nuclear one? Dims 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How About this, a hybrid of the two theories: The purpose of the human beings is to serve as a computation mode in a massive network. AND, this computational network is used to monitor, regulate, and direct the distribution of fusion energy throughout the entire machine society. This would make statements that humans are used for a power source vaguely correct, even if not every word Morpheus said could be applied. It would also bring in the more realistic elements of brains as network nodes. And, it would reference to Morpheus' "combined with a form of fusion" line.--Daniel (UTC)


I may point that you are WRONG. We use our energy, in talking, walking running, playing, smoking (excluding thinking). all these activities were vanished, and the machines will be able still to use us as a source of energy. 3:29 am EDT, 17 July 2006 John aTr

Irrelevant. Even sitting still, the human body doesn't produce energy. The amount it simply stores will be less than the amount put into it through food and ozygen. --Daniel 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I saw wristwatch, which was powered with shaking hand while walking. Dims 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Daniel. While the practicality of using humans as an energy source is vaguely understandable, it seems more logical that the machines would harness human logic. While the machines are advanced AI, humans are still logical.--Cuardaim 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mormon influence?

It seems to me like in addition to all the other religoius angles, the Mormon concept of Zion has been thrown in there pretty heavily, especially in Reloaded. --Nerd42 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ok before mormonisms, there were still orgies and polygamy. --• Storkian • 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

User:Vladimir Morales moved this article from The Matrix series to The Matrix Trilogy. I've moved it back, for the following reasons:

  1. There is more to the series than just the three main films. There are also the comics, the videogames and The Animatrix, and moving the page to "Trilogy" would prevent discussion of those additional aspects of the franchise. I suppose The Matrix franchise would be acceptable, but personally I prefer "series".
  2. If the move had been right (it's not, for the reason above), I don't think that "trilogy" should have been capitalised. :)

--Nick RTalk 11:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be moved to The Matrix (franchise) because of it's foray into video games and comics. The Filmaker

I think more people know this as the Matrix Trilogy. although I think franchise also works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.72.3 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledged influences

I think we should list, on this talk page, all of the influences that have been specifically cited by the filmmakers, for easy reference when we talk about them in the main article. I think those are the ones that should be given most prominence in the article, above those that have been pointed out by critics and other viewers. I haven't watched The Matrix Revisited or the documentary on the Animatrix DVD in a while, but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head:

  • Ghost in the Shell - Joel Silver says something about the Wachowski brothers showing him an anime and saying "we wanna do that for real". I'm not sure where Ghost in the Shell was specifically mentioned, but I'm sure it has been.
  • On one of the documentaries, someone, I can't remember who, mentions "the framing of Frank Miller".

Can anyone think of any others? --Nick RTalk 17:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well considering the anime directors and producers they were attracted to to create the animatrix series(talked about in various special features) it can be reasoned that at least one anime from each creator was admired by and inspired the brothers. for instance, I'm sure Aeon Flux was the draw for peter cheung as it is similar to the matrix in many respects and watching his other work that was done before the matrix, Reign, it is obvious that that isnt reflected in the matrix films.
By the same logic, I suppose the comic book artwork of Steve Skroce and Geof Darrow must have had some impact, since they were chosen to provide the storyboards and concept art for the films. --Nick RTalk 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of the movie "Robot Holocaust" as a influence? The Matrix is nearly a remake. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093872/ http://www.jabootu.com/robotholocaust.htm Mhocker 10:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing

However, the practical reasoning behind the use of sunglasses in the filming on the movie is that the natural reaction of a person is to blink when the eye views the muzzle flash from a firearm. Sunglasses were used in the film so the audience does not see the actors blinking during gunfight scenes. The glasses also provided limited eye protection from the flying debris of the first movie's "Government Lobby" shootout.

Is their a citation for this or is this just a speculation, as "pratical" as these reasons may be surely the sunglasses were a purely a "wardrobe" and style issue.--195.171.131.151 14:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Lucas

I agree; I've added a {{Fact}} notice to draw attention to it. --Nick RTalk 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This was given a mention by the production team in some of the vast pile of Making Of material they produced, however the brief (I think two-sentence) mention doesn't make it clear whether they thought of it during costume design - it might've been realised when shooting began. So without an unambigious source, yes, it should've been gone. Sockatume 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, if you consider all the philosophical viewpoints expressed in the movie, it is difficult to assume that any part of the costume was simply 'practical'. It seems to me that even something as simple as sunglasses have a significant effect on the movie. Consider that the sunglasses cast a reflection of the things around them, and that the camera often focuses on those reflections. Consider, too, that the only time sunglasses are worn is in the Matrix. If you look at the philosopical aguments of Plato and the Allegory of the Cave, you would see that the reflections of the world inside the Matrix are there to show alternate realities of an un-reality. Nira 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nira

[edit] Matrix comics

No mention of Matrix comics on wikipedia! Maybe make matrix portal?

Someday... sure! VdSV9•♫ 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical?

As a student of philosophy, I thought I should point out that I encountered no philosophical elements in the 'reloaded' episode. I know the word 'philosophy' has received many alternate meanings (one of the most irritating of which is companies thinking that their marketing scheme can be called 'a philosophy'), but that is no excuse to misuse the word in an encyclopedia, even if the article is not about philosophy but about a film. And especially, of course, if the word is linked to the philosophy article. Sorry about being so stuck up. :) DirkvdM 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, speak your mind, the matrix is not really "philosophic" per se, but rather takes several elements from philosophy (usually the shallow ones) and places them here and there. Now if there was a brand new philosophy that the movie would present, that would be another story. (unknown author)
Shallow? Have you ever studied Philosophy? While I can't say that I am familiar with Reloaded, I know that in the first movie alone, there are numerous philisophical citings. Most of them are anything but shallow. Take, for example, the book in which Neo keeps the disks at the beginning of the movie. It is a book called "Simulacra and Simulation" a book written by a French man, (Beaurillard). Further, the chapter in which the disks are kept is one about Nietszche's Overman. Now, I am not particularly fond of Nietzsche or his Philosohies, but it is not possible to call them shallow in anyway. There are also examples of Christianity, Buddhism, Hiduism, and many refrences to such philosophies as The Allegory of the Cave. Further, the refrences are not placed 'here and there', but are a fundamental part of the movies, or at least the first of them. Nira 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nira

I'd say the Matrix is "philosophy for dummies", and not in any real sense philosophical. Saying that the story is specifically "complex" is arguable, and saying that the story is "incorporating many philosophical elements" is really giving it too much praise. Of course, Nietsche isn't shallow but every "use" of philosophy (everything about the oracle, for instance) in the films are fairly shallow, and the ideas pondered over in them could have been written by anyone fairly bright. This has always been my main objection with the films. //Swedish philosophy student.

I'm sorry, but I have to say the reaction that the Matrix is "Philosophy for Dummies" is like saying The Tao Te Ching is "Just a collection of metaphors" and has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. I'm sure a student of philsophy such as yourself can see that it is far beyond "Shallow" I mean...The ties between the movie and as Nira mentioned above Simulacra and Simulation are just basic examples of how the philosophy in the movies goes beyond general "Common-place abstract thought." Not to mention the fact that the movie shadows many ideas from Beaurillard, Neitszche, Buddhism, Christianity, and Taoism in general. Hell, Morpheus even quotes Beaurillard when he says to Neo "Welcome to the Desert, of the Real."...Another example being the Nebuchadnezzar, Morpheus' ship, it's power core reads "Mark III No. 11", Mark 3:11 reads "And whenever those possessed by evil spirits caught sight of him, they would fall down in front of him shrieking, 'You are the Son of God!" Not to even mention the relationship between so many Babylonic references throughout the movie, beyond simply Nebuchadnezzar being named after the King. Shallow? Please, spare us that foolishness, I do hope they aren't teaching you all such close-minded bollocks. --CylonSix 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more like introductory philosophy. It covers a broad range of topics, and is designed to skim the surface and make you think. That's the heart of philosophy, so this definitely isn't "shallow." Complaining that it doesn't go in depth enough is ridiculous when there's so much going on and the purpose of the films wouldn't allow. That's part of the reason the first one was so great, there's enough there for the more intelligent, thoughtful person to consider afterwards, but there's not too much like in the later ones that it's hard to understand, or restrictive on the imagination. If you want a movie that goes in depth in philosophy you either need to be watching highly intelligent, little-known indie films or READING A BOOK. Don't expect a popular film to talk about the semiotics of a developing civilization. Jjmckool (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Reception

This section is horrible at the moment. No citations, original research, unverified claims etc. I disagree with a lot of whats said so I will refrain from editting it myself, but if no one adds citations for the claims made it will be deleted in a few days. Konman72 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Well i have two things to say, and I already posted this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_%28fictional_universe%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_fictional_universe and that's y i am keeping the dates.

about "Which year?" and the LAST SCENE (The ending): People spent awful alot of time thinking about which year, and the try to come up with these weird assumptions and numbers. I am very sorry but this is really Ridiculous, because you are analyizing this story, as if it's true and we are in the year 3000, anyway, we can ask the Architect? or we can ask whoever wrote his part or we can ask the director or What? it really doesn't matter whether it's 3.6 or 3.4. but you can also read my Explanation on Smith Deletion which we might analyze. (John aTr) 1:39 pm Sunday 5/7/06 Eastern Time.

How about you might want to think about, that a milli second before the copying process to Neo is completed Neo deleted himself, thus deleting Only one of the Smiths (THE New and the Most Powerfull Smith), thus not transferring Neo's Power to Smith. The Machine Main Frame took into account Neo's Power outside the Matrix and "How he got there?" so for a minimum Loss, The Machines Let Smith Force Neo to Sacrifice himself, in turn The MAchine main Frame Deleted Smith or Rebooted the System, to it's Normal Position (the seventh Version, whether, it's 3.5 or 3.7). Because the Machines could delete Smith anyway as he is (still connected to) anyone plugged in to the Matrix in the fields whom are connected to the machines, thus i don't see still why Neo was need to delete Smith. With the same talking, No one could Kill Neo, but on the other hand Smith is unphysical program that is bounded by the matrix (Exception, his only escape incidence to the Real world, which is limited). Rebooting the Matrix will result in "the extention of Smith", Thus Neo Mistankely thought that Smith Grew beyond the Machines power (or why they not deleting him, because he isnot like an Exile that hide and escape from agents) it's Beleived that Agents Job is to Delete these kind of Abnormalities, to Fix the Matrix, put there's no point for fixing just "RESTART OR REBOOT", but the Machines Let Smith to Do his Work, Finnaly to attract Neo, The MAchines big Threat, and thus killing (deleting) him, but the MAchines were not expecting that "Peace Deal" Because They realized that No one Can kill Neo."I think this might be a part of the Theory". By the way, Will you watch constantine ? (John aTr) 1:44 pm Sunday 5/7/06 Eastern Time.

[edit] Reception of Sequals

This category is riddled with Weasel Words, most have sources cited. perhaps someone would be willing to add actual names for some of these sources. For example: While the first movie was extremely successful, viewers continue to debate the quality of the sequels. Some fans and professional critics believe they exceed the quality and conceptual heights of the first film, while others found the later films disappointing. [1] Rottentomatoes.com is listed as a source, but we don't know which critics said such a thing. Any thoughts? Graveenib 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it. What does the section say, actually? "Some people liked the series, but other people didn't." No kidding! Sounds like...well, like every movie ever made.

[edit] Matrixism Link

Regarding the link to Matrixism, the information provided in the Geocities site is possibly dubious. For example, there are photos supposingly of fliers in different cities around the world that appear to be fake. If the informmation from this site is deemed to be dubious, then WP:V is fairly clear: "Material from... sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information... in articles about themselves". Considering this article concerns The Matrix series, not Matrixism, the link should possibly be deleted. Any thoughts? Addhoc 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Graveenib 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed --Cuardaim 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe Abuse

lol, Firsfron... This seems too trivial to edit war about, and I seem to be a minority on this one. Maybe someone can set me straight. There's a sentence in the article that reads Any system which is open with its environment can freely produce more energy than the operator has to input. I interpret this as: the environment belongs to the system, so it is posessive. It is my understanding that when speaking in the posessive context there should be an apostrophe. Example: "David's shoelace is untied" instead of "Davids shoelace is untied." The shoelace belongs to David. But this is speaking about a person's belonging. What of a belonging of an object? "My car's tire is flat" or "My cars tire is flat?" What about "I wrecked my car. Its tire is flat" or "I wrecked my car. It's tire is flat?" Which of these is correct? --Graveenib 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Per this grammar site (and 1,000 others), "it's" means "it is" or "it has", never "belonging to it". Cheers! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable...VdSV9•♫ 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blade

I think there should be some mention of the influence of the movie "Blade" on the wardrobes in "The Matrix." In fact, maybe there should be mention of "Blade's" basic similarities to "The Matrix" in plot. Both movies portray a dark world being run by a secret society that most humans have no knowledge of. Both movies portray a superpowered savior that is aware of the menace and the one person capable of stopping it. And both movies feature extreme uses of martial arts and gunplay. Since the movies were released so close together, this may all be coincidence. But it's worth noting.

Did Kim Barrett say in an interview her influence was from Blade? Did the Wachowskis? Until this info is verified, I disaree. --Graveenib 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree for those reasons. But also because if we mentioned every film/story where the world is being run by a secret society, we'd end up with thousands of references.Shamess 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defending One's Edit in the Edit Summary

If you feel you need to defend your edit in the edit summary, then maybe you should rethink the edit or discuss it first. --Graveenib 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Should there be lists of books about the Matrix series? There are many many books.--Darrelljon 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What books did you have in mind? I guess I was not aware of books in the series.--Cuardaim 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Innocence

In spite of being a huge fan of the series, the other day, I realized some hypocrisy of Morpheus and his crew. When agents take over innocent people's bodies, act of killing an agent inadvertently kills an innocent life. It is similar to human shield used by terrorists and the like. Does killing that agent justify the murder? Or am I mistaken in that once a person is possessed by an agent, he/she will be permanently effected? If that's the case, then I guess they were essential dead as soon as the agent possessed him/her.

It would have been interesting if neo showed some sorrow for indirectly killing innocence? And I don't buy the argument that they're "blue pills" and their deaths are irrelevant since they're plugged into sterile pods. If the Matrix is an allegory to our lives here, then ending innocent life, freed or not, should not be justified.

--Vagrant ronin 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the host's "file" is just deleted. And they're most probably removed from their pod in the "farms". If we consider the Matrix to be like a normal computer, I don't think there's a way to overright a file but keep the existing file in the background somewhere. Shamess 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I would personally believe that the innocent victims of an agent take over would more than likely go through a "reboot" of sorts. Seeing as how the Matrix runs off of humans, I could understand a form of "surge protection." Neo and the other individuals freed of the Matrix can be killed either in or out of the Matrix. I think this is due to the fact that they are no longer protected by the mainframe.--Cuardaim 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Chronology

I'd like to see some mention of when the three movies were written. My bias would have this illustrating a "tacked on" quality to the two sequels, but someone who knows more than me about these movies could probably flesh out some of the continuity issues. Manys 06:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are parodies mentioned? Matrix XP [www.matrix-xp.com] Was created aprox a year after the first movie Can not find it mentioned on Wikipedia Hey you random 13:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Ultimate Matrix Collection.jpg

Image:The Ultimate Matrix Collection.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic Motifs

What happened to the 'Thematic Motifs of the Matrix series' page? It's referenced here, and elsewhere (see Logos), but doesn't exist. What's up with that? Brainscar 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of the Matrix series. I can't remember exactly what was in that article, but it was originally forked off from here (The Matrix (series)), so it might have been useful to merge some of its content back here. You can still refer to the last edit before the material was originally split off. But if it is restored, it will need a lot of references! --Nick RTalk 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neuromancer

Does anybody want to include that all of the matrix films were based on the 1988 game Neuromancer and the 1984 novel Neuromancer? (Both which take place in the Matrix, and in Zion, and involve MANY of the same themes. Billy Bishop 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The influence of the works of William Gibson (and other science fiction) is discussed at The Matrix#Influences and interpretations. I think there was also some discussion of influences in this article, before it was forked off into Thematic motifs of the Matrix series, which has now been deleted. --Nick RTalk 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Okkie this movie is very very philosophical, its mainly about Rene descartes "the cave" story —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.168.224 (talk) 09:13:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

You mean Plato (aka Socrates). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.162.119 (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism sourcing

As previous anonymous edits promoting Matrixism have, in the past, proposed falsified or dubious sources, I think it's prudent to withhold references to print or otherwise not-readily-verifiable sources on the matter pending verification by an editor. If someone would like to verify these sources, please share your results here. Philwelch 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In your edit summaries you have recently described sourced content as 'bullshit' and implied other editors are biased - in this context, I consider your involvement to be unhelpful. Your edits have removed reliably published work by scholars, for example:
  • Adam Possamai (2005). Religion and Popular Culture, A Hyper-Real Testament. Peter Lang. 
the contents of which are explained in other references:
In this context, I have restored the references you deleted. Addhoc 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Given that this sort of content has been continually removed by consensus from multiple articles over the past two years, and given further that many supposed references (Possamai's in particular) have been discredited in the past by editors who have actually studied the sources referenced, it's not prudent to accept further supposed references without question until they've been verified. Philwelch 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
On another note, Matrixism is largely tangential to the subject at hand—if it should be covered in Wikipedia at all, it should be in a separate article. Philwelch 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Phil, a reliably published book by an academic who specializes in a relevant field of study, that has received media coverage in further reliable sources, isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "supposed" reference. Your arguments appear to be nothing more than a lengthy rendition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Addhoc 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I say it's a "supposed" reference because further review of the Possamai reference has already shown nothing more than a passing mention. A reference not only needs to be from a reliable source, it also has to back up the statement it is purported to back up. I've dealt with this attempt at self-promotion for longer than you've been editing Wikipedia at all. Just because a blatant attempt at self-promotion turned into a thinly-veiled attempt at self promotion doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of Wikipedia, no matter how thick the veil has become in the interceding years. That is what's driving my arguments here. It may be that persistence will defeat reason here—maybe our anonymous "Matrixism" enthusiast cares more about promoting his Geocities page than I care about protecting Wikipedia. He has certainly been at this long enough to trick a loyal cadre of legitimate editors into helping him out, long after most of the people who remember his vandalism campaigns have lost interest or given up. Philwelch 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm never impressed by editors who argue they must be right because they have been editing longer / their edit count is higher, which is usually a sign of desperation. You have infringed Wikipedia's policies in the last week, for example by leaving uncivil edit summaries, so arguing that another editor must be wrong, because they violated policy last year isn't convincing. Addhoc 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have significant relevant experience dealing with this issue. My objective was not to impress you but to respond to your uncivil mischaracterization of my motivations here. If you are going to continue trolling and refusing to deal seriously with the issue then I suggest you leave well enough alone. Philwelch 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Phil, I disagree with you about this issue and consider your edit summary of "bullshit" uncivil, however that doesn't give you the right to call me a troll. Addhoc 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You do not have the right to mischaracterize everything I say, ignore when I refute your arguments, and then pour scorn on me for correcting your misunderstandings. I have the right to identify that kind of behavior for what it is. Philwelch 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Phil, while I obviously don't agree that I'm a troll, your recent edits have been constructive. The current version, where the Matrixism text is part of the 'Reputation and influence' section is a reasonable compromise. Addhoc 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism subsection

From a style perspective, the Matrixism section seems highly tangential, and is in the form of a separate article. (Indeed, I had to undo the bolding of "Matrixism" at the beginning because it was originally written as a separate article). I propose that it be split back to Matrixism, which now directs to the subsection. From that point, we can use its talk page, as well as AFD, to discuss its continued inclusion. Philwelch 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've removed the subsection and restored the full article at Matrixism. Philwelch 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I object. I saw a great many "merge and redirect" recommendations in the AFDs I looked at, what are you looking at that says "delete and destroy all the material" or "keep as a separate article" ? StuRat 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And I've merged it back, being as there was strong consensus for not having the article, and twelve hours, mostly overnight, is scarcely long enough for any discussion to emerge anyway. If you want the matrixism article back, go to deletion review. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't—my eventual goal was to AFD it. The content certainly doesn't belong here, however, since it reads like a tangential, separate article poorly grafted on. AFD would be an easier and more definitive form of consensus-building than talking about it here, at Talk:Matrixism, on my talk page, at ANI, and at the variety of other scattered venues this has taken place. And any past "strong consensus" was for not having the content at all—that consensus does not clearly and obviously apply to the new content. Philwelch 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments by Guy on the WP:AN/I noticeboard - a trimmed version isn't objectionable. Addhoc 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the article a bit and merged the Matrixism info into a greater "influence and reputation" section so it wouldn't stick out so much. I'm not entirely decided on this yet, but I think this way might be acceptable. Philwelch 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Matrixism Matrixist?

What strikes me about the Geocities site is that it portrays a weird, presumably humorous religion (five types of marriage, bicycle riding as a sacrament and such) which explicitly says that it doesn't even believe that the world is a computer simulation. Now I ask you, if he ("they" seems like an unconfirmed statistic to me) doesn't believe our world is a computer simulation then how on Earth can "they" be in any way relevant to the movie? So I say these are not your orthodox Matrixists here, but some kind of heretic offshoot, even if the mainstream church has been late in arising. It would be altogether unfair to burden the good name of the movie with this johnny-come-lately tripe.

They say "of course" they don't believe in the computer simulation as if it were an odd thing to think, but certainly the possibility seemed reasonable to me long before the movie. After all, we happen to be living in the first era that was extensively filmed and documented in the history of Earth, so doubtless one of the most fertile for recreation. One might even say that there are certain telling errors - in the modern world it is assumed that identity documents are sacrosanct, but when you look at some of the odd mishmashes of personality traits walking the streets you can't help but wonder whether perhaps the original humans loathed the system a bit more than is assumed now, and swapped these details far more frequently with one another. And just try to explain why it is that so many people fumble around with keys for a minute or more each day, in a race that could jump between flying trapezes and balance plates on poles on the tips of their noses.

A bit of tongue in cheek here but hey, who knows if reality is real? Wnt (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

I removed the following text added without discussion:

Usually with movie trilogies, in the first two movies there are not-so-blatant signs of Christianity that people NEVER notice. However, upon the third movie, or any final installment of a series, whether it be movies or books, the Christian themes are made so blatantly evident. When this trend started, we can only guess. In Spider-Man 3, Peter Parker's only hope to save himself is to enter a church and use the bell to remove what's ailing him; in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry visits a church for the first time in the series, on Christmas, and discovers Bible passages, and in the chapter called Deathly Hallows we see the Holy Trinity in it's most evident form, as well as the Christian method for indentifying one Christian to another (a cross worn 'round the neck); in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle, God makes a blatant appearance, tearing away the guise of the lion Aslan. In The Matrix Revolution, it seems most people, even Christians, wrongly see the machines as the bad guys, but this may in fact be very wrong. In fact, it seems that the machines can be liken to angels and the Architect liken to God, the humans of Zion are the rebel angels, rebel angels or rebel humans who, in the end, are saved by the messiah Neo (liken to Jesus Christ) who, even though he comes from another place (the Machine City, or Heaven) he lays down his life for the rebel angels or rebel humans. This theory came about for a few after the Architect laid down a dead Neo and said, "It is done." A direct statement that can be liken to the one that is uttered when the messiah Jesus Christ is murdered for the sake of a rebellious humanity. Or, think of it this way... EVERYTHING living in The Matrix films, comes from the Machine City, from the Architect: the good and the bad. In the end, through the sacrifice of Neo, the Architect has compassion on the rebel humans who deserted The Matrix.

Addhoc 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo= Jesus, The Architect=God?

Seriously, this movie was based on the Christian belief most of the time. Neo's powers are equivalent of jesus miracles and the Architect was the creator of the matrix. Since he had a beard and was the creater, I assume he was god. Therefore this movie leads me to believe that Christianity was the primary keys that the matrix has touched upon. i mean primary key of beliefs.

--• Storkian • 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


...so? Epthorn 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


There's more than just that, Mary Magdalane, John the Baptist, the Apostles, the Merovingians, Seraph, Trinity, Zion, Ander is Greek for "man," Thomas A Anderson is "son of man," and Thomas A. is a saint, etc. I imagine it should be wrote in and referenced, there's about a thousand sites that mention all this and a lot more. Jjmckool (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)