Talk:The Matrix Reloaded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Matrix Reloaded article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Wachowski Brothers

I've changed this to say Wachowskis in light of Larry (Lana) Wachowski's sexual-reassignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.206.157 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Reworked the plot points of the second film. The trouble is that so much exposition happens in the Architect's speech (history of the Matrix, integration of choice, purpose of the One...all of that with critical details) that it helped to divide his speech sections, too. This will help people who are looking to get a detailed-yet-simplified version of what the Architect says. Being a program who doesn't talk to anyone but anomalies once every 100 years and spends the rest of his time doing calculations, it comes as little surprise that his super-precise speech carries so much information. And yet, Bakailis does such a great job at being menacing with the slightest intonations in his voice and those little flicks of the lip or eye. It's a hard character, and he plays it well - not too subdued, yet not too introvert.

Max314 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to list the entire cast? Seems kind of excessive... -- Wapcaplet 17:06 21 May 2003 (UTC)

PS - Especially considering the entire list is copied verbatim from imdb.com. Copyright violation? -- Wapcaplet 17:11 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Possibly slightly but the majority of them are in there because their characters names are simply facinating in that they all have mythological or other significance whitch ties in with the movie itself and it's themes. what better way to explore what the warchowskis where trying to say than this wiki format.

Hmm, don't remember Wikipedia being about exploring the world of the Warchowski brothers. -- ESP 02:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To fully understand the MAtrix, the brothers W's brainchild requires supplimentary information and what better place to supply it then Wikipedia?

PS - sorry i didn't know I changed it the most I thought possible please edit it more if it still is an infringement. but please find a way to include the links already there -Ylbissop 21 May 2003

Actually, listing the entire cast is less likely to be copyright infringment. You can't copyright facts. However, if you perform an editorial function by picking and choosing (or categorizing), then you're exercising some intellectual effort and your results CAN be copyrighted. -- Dwheeler 20:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Since it's a list of facts it cannot be copyrighted. However, including the entire cast is pointless. Wikipedia is a dynamic system, while the cast list is static. It can be linked to with an external link. We can list the most important cast members and link to background articles which discuss the people or myths after which their characters were named. Any discussion of the plot of The Matrix Reloaded should remain in this article, not on the background articles. -- Minesweeper 21:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)

thanks minesweeper-Ylbissop 21 May 2003


This seems non-NPOV to me, anyone else agree?

While surpassing the first part of the trilogy in terms of special effects, the sequel is firmly rooted in the action genre, and anecdotal evidence suggests that most fans were disappointed by the lack of an imaginative storyline with philosophical implications in Reloaded.

--Dante Alighieri 00:40 22 May 2003 (UTC)

It's certainly POV, and looking at some fan response on the internet, doesn't seem to be true. Certainly, I thought there was an imaginative storyline with philosophical implications in Reloaded. As far as a cast list, I'm not sure why something being "static" means that it's inappropriate for inclusion in the wikipedia. For instance, a list of the Kings of France is static, but we still include that (although there are plenty of external sites that give such a link). john 00:48 22 May 2003 (UTC)

We have the list of kings because we have articles on all those monarchs. I don't think we'll ever have an article on the guy who played "Security Guard #5" and if visitors really want to know who that actor was, we have the IMDB link. I thought the movie was sort of slow at the beginning, but then all that stuff with the Architect was unexpected. I wouldn't call it predictable. It certainly raised a lot more questions than it answered. I think that statement is POV and needs to be reworded. -- Minesweeper 01:27 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Well...my anecdotal evidence consists of 5 people, all of whom called the plot "too predictable" and "a disappointment, given the high expectations set by The Matrix". Also, if you have a look at e.g. http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0234215, you'll see that all the positive reviews focus on the kung-fu and special effects, while all the negative ones complain about the plot. Mkweise 01:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Mkweise, if you check out the IMDB message boards on the movie, you'll note a fair number of people discussing the intricacies of the plot, and indicating that they thought that it was very interesting. Even the reviews on IMDB are not uniformly as you describe them. Furthermore, five people is pretty lame anecdotal evidence, especially from someone who has apparently not seen the movie. I can give the anecdotal evidence of myself, the person I saw it with, my sister, and a couple of other people I've talked to about it, all of whom though it was pretty good. Also, check out rottentomatoes.com - 75% Fresh in the general mix, 77% fresh among the "cream of the crop". It gets a weaker 62 from metacritic (but I think metacritic is more conceptually unsound, given that they have to give each review a "score" from 1 to 100, which is much more open to debate than rotten tomatoes' "positive" vs. "negative" reviews), but this is still fairly good. And a pretty high percentage of the good reviews don't say that the movie was just good for kung fu and special effects. Certainly, it has been said that all the movie is is kung fu and special effects, and there's been a pretty good share of bad reviews. Not least by Harry Knowles, who usually seems to absolutely adore pretty much any movie he sees. But your statement is far too sweeping, and the movie has gotten its fair share of good reviews, and positive reaction. What should really be said is "while some said bla bla bla [bad stuff], other critics argued that bla bla bla [good stuff]," or vice versa. john 01:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Jlk7e—feel free to have a go at rewording; I'm happy to admit that my summary of Ps of V is sub-optimal. Note that I never said the movie was bad, just that the plot disappointed due to the high standards set by the amazingly brilliant first installment of the trilogy. Mkweise 02:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Mkweise, I'd say that the first movie was simply a very good science fiction movie, and not amazingly brilliant, and that the second movie fully lived up to the standards of the first, with the exception of some lame dullness in the first 45 minutes. I've reworked the paragraph, see what you think. Feel free to edit it further if you think I've tilted too far in one direction. I'd add that the "Plot" section of the article is in serious need of work, in that what's there now seems to have been written before the movie came out, by someone who hasn't seen it. john 02:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Revolutions grossed roughly half of what Reloaded did. If Reloaded's success can be attributed to how well-received the original Matrix was, then Revolutions' failure can be attributed to how much people disliked Reloaded. The numbers tell the story, regardless of any personal bias either way. 130.13.80.107 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

mkweise, why did you remove reference to "critics"? john 03:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Jlk7e: I changed the two mentions of "critics" to "viewers" and "fans" respectively, because the opinions I described were gathered from random friends, not professional film critics. I reworded "the expansion of the mythology and philosophy of the original film" due to logic issues with that phrase; your subsequent rerewording is fine with me. Mkweise 05:25 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I've read professional film critics who were disappointed in the film in much the manner you describe (c.f. David Edelstein, Slate). The other comments were mine, not based on the comments of your friends at all, and did not relate to your comment, and did relate to what actual film critics said (Ebert, for instance, didn't seem too impressed with the philosophical stuff in either movie. The Salon reviewer was amazed by the philosophical profundity.) john 05:53 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I think the whole section beginning "The Matrix Reloaded surpasses the first part of the trilogy..." and ending "...the intellectual underpinnings of the films are overrated" is incredibly POV and should be deleted. I can see that some effort has been made to incorporate the other viewpoint, but the section reads as though biased in favour of a "reloaded is better than the original" POV. It's not in accordance with the majority of critics. --Urbane legend 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm definitely of the opinion that that section shouls go. Either it needs to be whittled down to, at maximum, one to three sentences, or just taken out altogether. It looks like people have been talking about this for a while, so I don't know if it's my place or anything, but unless someone urges me otherwise, I'm going to try to simplify and NPOV-ify that section in a few days. Pitr 10:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a mention about the all the problems during the production? For example, Aaliyah's death, the guy who plays Tank being arrested, etc. -- Erzengel 08:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I recently reworked the bit about piracy and User:MyRedDice partially reverted it, so I thought I had better explain my actions. Initially there was a header ==Pirate Copies Online== (or similar) which to my eyes stuck out as an invitation rather than a piece of information. To try to tone it down, I removed the names of the P2P progs from which the copies can be obtained , but then realised that it would be better to just the remove the header (i.e. the content wasn't iffy after all, just a presentation tweak needed). I should've put the names of the progs back after removing the header. I didn't, but thanks for doing so MyRedDice. Pcb21 15:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That all makes good sense :) Martin

Afterthought : presumably once the file is on one of these networks, it ends up on all the others pretty quick? Pcb21 15:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The inclusion of the SPOILER notice allows you to tell us everything that happens in the film. don't be shy! please tell. Kingturtle 01:00 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there should be two levels of spoiler warning. "soft spoilers" and "spoils everything" ;) E.g. saying that Zion is under attack is somehow a spoiler, but a small one, and the paragraph that mentions that does not spoil much more than that. After I added "or so it seems" it may well become a teaser instead ? --FvdP 20:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Best movie quote of the year so far comes from Merovingian: "cursing in french is like wiping your ass with silk". hehehe. Infantile and POV, I know. Oh, well. B 02:25 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The cast of characters has this line :
Sing Ngai as Seraph (as Collin Chou)
What does the name in brackets supposed to mean ? Jay 11:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On one level, it means this cast list has been ripped off from IMDb (see above)! It also means that Sing Ngai has changed his name to Collin Chou, probably when he went to Hollywood. In the credits to the film he is listed as Collin Chou - but his real name is Sing Ngai. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is 'climactic' the right word for the freeway chase?

Almost certainly not, given that it's only halfway through the film. Sockatume 06:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone asked for a reference to the filing locations mentioned- here's a link to a San Francisco Chronicle article dated Sunday, May 11, 2003 Mega-sequel, mega-troubles 'Reloaded,' shot partly in the Bay Area, faced tragedies.--Emurray 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/Clean-up

Whoa. Has anyone read the second paragraph? Example

"By contrast, there are also viewers who believe that the intellectual underpinnings of the films are overrated, which are unfortunately the majority view."

The whole paragraph reaks of it. It sounds too fan-boy-ish. Plus, all that information should not be presented so soon. What if the reader doesn't have even a single clue what The Matrix Reloaded is?

(This is not the same person as above, but I agree.) Furthemore, the current attempts going on to NPOV the second paragraph of Overview are making it worse because balancing and counterbalancing is making the paragraph unwieldy. As above, there's too much information presented before we know what the movie is about. Why not put the discussion in a separate "Critical Response" section, farther down. Also, could the plot summary be broken up into a long version and a short version? What if people want to know what happened but don't care to know everything that happened? Edonovan 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A mention of the MTV VA Parody of Reloaded would be a nice touch ;) Plonk420 13:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The whole first section is very POV. It reads like an apologist article for the movie.Gateman1997 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole article seems POV, like a fanboy's dream review. Scholars and philosophers are tossed around like MANY people make these claims but it references ONE person? Come on, it truly is an apologist article for a movie that very much did not live up to it's expectations. Slammed critically and with a lackluster followup in theaters and DVD.12.17.203.65 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "For 314 seconds, the mainframe can be entered (a reference to Pi or perhaps John 3:14),"

I've taken this out because John 3:14 is a completely irrelevant scripture - perhaps the writer was thinking of John 3:16? John 3:14 reads "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." There are many scriptures like that in the bible, it's hardly noteworthy Graphia 09:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe because it references the Son of Man (Anderson/Neo) and references pi, it's significant and possibly intentional on the part of the filmmakers. I'm not married to it or anything, but it's worth considering. Pitr 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but I still think it's too much of a stretch to be useful. If anyone particularly wants to leave it in that's fine. Graphia 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Even though there's much NPOV cleanup to do with the article as a whole, I couldn't help but feel compelled to add a piece about the connection between Neo and the recurring number 101. It's a relatively well-traveled idea and unlike so many fanboy statements can actually be backed up by something concrete, so I went for it. Bombfish 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

what about 202 AND 303?


If there is a prolific connection between the main characters and the numbers 202 and 303 that I missed, feel free to be bold and express it.Bombfish 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bash quote

Not included in the article, and way off-topic here, but I found it too funny not to pass on: (originally from bash.org)

Matrix Reloaded is a very different kind of film from the original, both in style and theme. The first movie posed the question, "What is the nature of reality?" The question for this movie is, "Do French people ever stop talking?" Or perhaps, "Why is Colonel Sanders sitting in a room full of TVs?"

Maybe I've been up too late, but my sides hurt from that one. TKarrde 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plot reasoning unclear

Hi. Neo's choice is unclear to me

  • Reintegrade(kuilling him?) with the source (so the source can build a more failsafe program?) and choosing a group of people to repopulate Zion (why are the machines helping to rebuilt recently destroyed Zion?)
  • Not comply(try to save his girl) and thus cause ther destruction of man kind.(why would the Architact destroy all of the inhabitants of the matrix..?)
  • Would'nt it be a simple solution for the exssessive 1% of free minds(due to choice) to be killed upon release from the matrix..?

--Procrastinating@talk2me 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Neo's choice was to either accept his role as 'The One' or reject it for his more 'human' qualities. The 1% that reject the Matrix are important to the survival of the Matrix; freeing the 1% would remove the 'purpose' of both man and Machine (Man's will to survive and Machine's job of maintaining order).

My supposition is that the Machines need to 'reset' Zion because the population is aging. If they wait too long, the One will die, as all living things do, and the city will be destroyed because the One can't reintegrate with the Source and preserve the 'required' number of people to rebuild Zion. Thus, if the Machines don't rebuild Zion, they are ultimately 'cutting their own throats' by de-stabilizing a mostly-balanced equation. 207.216.10.130 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, no matter how believable the Matrix is, 1% of the population will reject it. Zion serves as a new, external prison for the 1% allowing them to think they are being freed and fighting. As the Matrix ages, the number of people in Zion increases with humans being born outside the Matrix a la Doser and Tank. In turn, the machines are forced to wipe out the majority of humans in Zion as they cause increasing disruptions to the Matrix (freeing red pills.) The system starts anew with Zion being repopulated propagating the idea of the one where in actuality they still remain in a system of control, albeit alive. If you listen to the speech from the white haired councilman you could infer that he knows about the system of control arguing it as a system of symbiosis. As far as I can tell Zion rising and falling has marginal effect on the 99% in the bio-energy fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.208.154 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piracy

Is it really notable that The Matrix: Reloaded appeared on filesharing networks? In fact this is the case with almost all movies in existence... I'm removing this bit if nobody objects. --logixoul 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --logixoul 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red line

Why is there a red line under the cleanup tags? I have never seen this in other articles. Im especially curious because it has been there for so many edits now. Remy B 15:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cast

The article has this absurd line:

The cast of The Matrix Reloaded is largely the same as The Matrix, with only minor additions.

er... let's think... there's smith, neo, morpheus, trin, then we have the oracle, and... there's hm... no. that guy... dead. yea, nope!

- VdSV9•♫ 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "However"

In the second paragraph of the "Overview" section, there are three consecutive sentences starting with "However". AnonMoos 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of two of them. Feel free to change my edits. --Tim (talk), (contribs) 16:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African-Americans

Given the context of the film, is it really appropriate to refer to blacks as African-Americans,given that many may not be American? Additionally, while a lot of the background characters may be dark skinned, they still may be Caucasian. Additionally, as it stands, Caucasians make up around half the population of the earth - in the present day they are certainly not significantly outnumbers, if at all. I'm going to clean up this second point directly, I'm not as sure about the first one. WilyD 15:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I reckon this section should be deleted: there is no America in the Matrix, and whoever wrote the paragraph is essentially calling it racial tokenism. EamonnPKeane 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anther thing worth mentioning is that most (if not all, I think one of Merovingian's henchmen that fights Neo in the mansion is black but I’m not sure) of the non-white characters are 'good' characters, even among the programs (e.g. The Oracle, Seraph, Keymaker). --TheYmode 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population mathematics

WilyD, I'm sure you honestly believe what you say, but . . . 1. Look up the population of Earth. Then, 2. Add the populations of Africa, Asia, and South America together. 3. Subtract about 25% from that total (we'll assume that 25% of the population of those three continents are Caucasian) 4. Let's not even factor in people of African, Asian, and aboriginal descent living elsewhere in the world. 5. If you've done your math correctly, your number HAS been largely than 3 billion. And if so, no matter what you think, Caucasians are far outnumbered by people of color. Go ahead . . do the math yourself.

Alright, I'll do the math
  • India ~ 1.1 Billion Caucasians
  • United States ~ 250 million Caucasians
  • Pakistan ~ 160 million Causcasians
  • Russia ~ 140 million Causcasians
  • Bangladesh ~ 140 million Causcasians
Here we see that 5 out of the 10 most populous countries are predominately caucasian, and one (Brazil) is far more ambigious.
But only counting the most populus countries, and excluding non-clearcut cases, it's already at 1.8 billion, while a comparable number in the top 10 are non-caucasian. Possibly a minority, possibly a majority, it's not clear to me. Not an overwhelming minority by any reasonable standard.
Or, roughly
  • Asia - 1.5 - 2 billion
  • Europe - 500 - 700 million
  • North America 300 - 400 million
  • South America 50-300 million
  • Africa 150-300 million
  • Oceania 20-25 million
  • Antartica 0 million ;)
  • Total 2.5-3.7 billion by my reckoning.WilyD 02:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
United States ~ 250 million? Come on man, this figure is fudged. [citation needed]
It's right to within about 10 percent, and the result doesn't really hinge upon it. 2.5-3.7 billion give or take 30 million is still 2.5 to 3.7 billion WilyD 02:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The main flaw in all these arguments is its attempt to impose American racial standards on the rest of the world. The label "white" is only really used in regions of the world with significant populations of Africans or other dark-skinned people (e.g. USA, Brazil, Africa). A Norwegian, when asked what race he is, will say "I'm Norwegian". The same goes for most other "whites". The largest ethnic group in the world is considered to be Han Chinese with 1,300,000,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:EamonnPKeane (talk • contribs)

[edit] Math Lesson

Now I see where the problem lies . . . with your questionable definition of "Caucasian". While I am fully aware of the anthropologist community's insistence of classifying people who are descended from the Indian subcontinent as "Caucasian", do you really think that is accurate? How much does the typical Indian or Paksitani have in common with the typical Spaniard or German (in terms of cultural or apppearance)? Do you think that most Bangladeshi consider themselves "Caucasian" . . . or are so considered by others?

If your whole argument is based upon misclassifying one-sixth of the world's population (India), miscounting America's population (Blacks & Hispanics clearly comprise at least 25% of the USA, so U.S. Caucasians total 225 million at most - remember Asians were not accounted for), and totally sidestepping South America (50-300 million? That's a wide range), then it is quite problematic.

I'm not certain what country you are from, but since this is wikipedia.org I will assume that you are from the United States (like me, born and raised). One of the few downsides of growing up in America is that we sometimes look at things purely through American eyes. We see a predominantly White country and we subconsciously impute that image onto our view of the world. I don't know you, so I'm not saying that this is what you're doing. But it does seem that you are engaging in mathematical contortionism to support a premise that simply is not true. ABCxyz 13:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an American - and I have definitely known a significant number of "brown" people who self-indentified as caucasian. The caucasian article also indicates that Arabs, Indians, and so forth are caucasian. My estimates were rather rough, and could easily be off a bit - but 20 million Americans aren't going to put a dent in 2.5-3.5 billion total. If you mean to say White people than say White people, it's perfectly fine. Maybe the term has evolved a bit in American English (which I don't speak, sorry), but if the usage is ambigious in english usage in general, better to be precise. Maybe I should've just changed it in the first place - that may have been my mistake. But with the caucasian article indicating Arabs, Brown people and White people as caucasian, then to use the term that way here is just confusing. Where I grew up white people comprimised less than 50% of the population, although where I live now I think they make up a slight majority. I am aware of the isses. WilyD 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Hey, I'm surprised at the lack of Trivia listed on the page! :) I added one off the top of my head (having not seen the movie in over a year) but will most likely add some more as time goes by. Reloaded is filled with loads of lil' hidden bits and it'd be nice to get a list going :) cheers

  • Nebuchadnezzar's Dream Reference

License Plates in The Matrix Reloaded [1]

Trinity and Morephus’ Cadillac on the freeway: DA203. Daniel 2:03 - “I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.”


The Matrix Reloaded trivia [2]

In the highway chase scene, the license plate on Trinity's car says DA203. If you look in Daniel 2:3, which says "he said to them, 'I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.'" This is possibly making reference to Neo's dream, because he went to the oracle partly to figure out what his dream about Trinity meant. The biblical text is speaking about King Nebuchadnezzar's searching for the meaning of his dream. In Verse 3, the Nebuchadnezzar says, "I have dreamed a dream." In Verse 5, when asked to explain his dream, he says, "The thing is gone from me" (all this is from the classic King James Version). Near the end of the movie as the Nebuchadnezzar explodes as a result of the sentinels' bomb, Morpheus says "I have dreamed a dream, and now that dream has gone from me."G33K 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burly Brawl

I just added the burly brawl from youtube to my space, it has to be one of the best fight scenes in any movie. (If it was DragonballZ, it would probably just have Goku doing a spirit bomb or something equally uncreative). I've noticed that at the beginning the fighting is more aesthetic, but round about the middle, you start seeing the side stepping manoeuvres of fighting systems designed to handle multiple opponents, such as baguazhang and systema (ignoring the exageratted physics), there's even some subtle comedy when Neo gets hit through the clones and you hear the sund of falling dominoes, and also when he picks up the one clone and throws him into the others and you hear the sound of bowling pins dropping. Does anyone know which martial arts were used for that scene? Dessydes 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] African-Americans and The Matrix Reloaded

Science fiction films rarely depict more than one African-American in a major role (For example, Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, the original film from 1977, had only the unseen James Earl Jones, while Episodes V and VI added Billy Dee Williams, the only African-American in the principal cast whose face was actually seen onscreen).

The Matrix Reloaded is the notable exception to this phenomenon. A majority of the principal cast (Laurence Fishburne, Jada Pinkett Smith, Gloria Foster, Harold Perrineau Jr., Harry J. Lennix, Nona Gaye, and Gina Torres) are African-American, as are Princeton professor Cornel West and light heavyweight boxer Roy Jones Jr., who have small yet important roles. In addition, people of color are seen throughout the background, particularly in the Zion scenes. In The Matrix Reloaded, the Wachowski brothers provide a rarely-seen picture of a future where the overwhelming majority of the world's people are non-caucasian.

Commentary of whether science fiction films depict more than one African-American doesn't belong on this page. Star Wars has little to do with The Matrix Reloaded. notable exception is POV. majority of the principal cast is misleading. The fact that people of color are seen throughout the scenes in Zion does little to support this. Perhaps someone can add some NPOV info and have some verifiable, reputable sources. At it's current state, this doesn't belong on this page. --Graveenib 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. If there is a reliable source that says something positive about the inclusion of African-Americans in the films then perhaps a single sentence could be included in one section, but this does not deserve an entire section. Konman72 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Useless Trivia

The triva entry that states "The Merovingian's restaurant is on the 101st floor." doesn't seem to have any point. There is no mention of the significance of this anywhere else on the page. If no one objects, I will remove it. Greg Birdsall 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be deleted. Chipstick 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be more relevant if it were mentioned that the government building in the first film had 101 floors as well. That numbering scheme is used throughout the series, including room 303 where Trinity was watching Neo at the beginning and later where he is shot by Smith. NDale 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion section

While it may be interesting for some to analyze and speculate on a film's possible interpretations, this section falls under Wikipedia:No_original_research. If someone could find cited sources of relevant, published---Jackel 20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) critical analysis, it could be included, but otherwise this section doesn't belong.

[edit] Trivia Revisited

It seems like the Trivia has gone way out of control. Things like the number of people in the credits of the movie really add no value to the page. Either we need to clean them up significantly, or move them to a new article, possible Matrix Trilogy Trivia or something of the like. Any thoughts? Greg Birdsall 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to make big changes to the Trivia section, I've just finished itemizing it. The next step should be to prune it and try to incorporate as much of it as possible into the main article. Please see WP:TRIV and Wikipedia:Trivia and help me out! Greg Birdsall 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone ever do anything about that? I've got trivia questions i want answered.

[edit] Plot spoiler for Matrix Revolutions

This "chapter" ends with the revelation of Neo laying unconscious on the Hammer next to the now "human" Agent Smith, who has taken control of Bane in order to Kill Neo. The story is concluded in the last film of the trilogy, The Matrix Revolutions.

Ignoring the rest of the Plot section which is too long and overly detailed (yet with scattered mentions of people and things that an average viewer wouldn't know), when was this fact revealed in The Matrix Reloaded? I really don't remember the movie all that well, but just finished watching The Matrix Revolutions and it seemed like the fact that the guy they picked up was really Smith was supposed to be a surprise. --70.142.32.5 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix Reloaded Cover.jpg

Image:Matrix Reloaded Cover.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible Reception

As far as reception goes, this article gets it wrong. Neither Reloaded nor Revolutions was received well. You don't have to look farther than imdb to see that. Online, it's a running joke how bad they were, having been parodied in such things as "The Matrix in Two Minutes," where the last two words were the succinct sentence, "Sequels sucked."

At the movie theatre I was in, people actually applauded when it began, having enjoyed the first one so much, and having waited so long for the sequel, and booed when it ended, so disappointed in the plot and just now realizing the Wachowski brothers had no idea what they had in the first. The box office sales don't indicate how well Reloaded was liked, it indicates how well the original was liked. If you want to see what people thought of Reloaded, look at the box office for Revolutions, which was barely half of what the box office for Reloaded was.

People hated the sequels.

I really can't overstate this. The Matrix sequels were probably the worst received sequels to a popular movie series since Godfather 3. Having the reception section omit this and offering non-representative statements such as "The Matrix Reloaded had a positive critical reception in most of the media," and "Criticisms and acclaim, on record, are at times similar to those leveled at the movie's predecessor," really misses the boat, and makes wikipedia look either oblivious or biased.

Mota2 (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)