# The Matrix films revisited



## Anthony G Williams (Mar 21, 2010)

I seem to be watching more films than reading books lately, probably because I recorded a lot of the Christmas TV schedules so I've been playing catch-up ever since. 

As a result, I sawthe Matrix trilogy again recently, for the first time since they were newly released (was *The Matrix* really over ten years ago?). I was impressed with the first of the series when I saw it originally and it has worn well, rich in SF ideas and with a complexity which makes the story in the visually wonderful *Avatar* seem as simple as a child's cartoon strip. I think that *The Matrix* is not far behind *Blade Runner* in the elite group of the best SF films ever made, and it's a lot more inventive. 

Sadly the two sequels, *The Matrix Reloaded* and *The Matrix Revolutions*,
released four years later following the huge success of the original, were a major disappointment. The impression I get is that the Wachowski brothers poured all of their ideas into *The Matrix* and were stumped for what to do next. *Reloaded* has just one really good, original SF scene (and the only one which significantly carries the plot forward); the climactic meeting between Neo and the Architect of the Matrix, the inventor of the virtual existence in which most of humanity is unwittingly trapped. Neo learns that he is the sixth version of himself to face the Architect and that his repeated appearance was due to an inherent flaw in the programming. All the time this meeting is taking place, the wall of TV screens is showing the varied reactions of his predecessors at their meetings with the Architect. As for the rest of the film, the brothers evidently decided to please the teenagers and fill it with combat and car chase scenes. While technically good, these go on and on interminably, well past the point of tedium, until you are praying for the bad guys to kill off the good guys just to put an end to it all. The only relief from this comes from the occasional pretentious speech, which is scarcely an improvement. Amazingly, *Reloaded* was more successful at the box office than *The Matrix*. There's no accounting for taste…

*Revolutions* is better, largely because the plot actually progresses to a conclusion rather than just marking time. Events begin to make some sort of sense - I particularly liked the notion that the evil Mr Smith programme was the inevitable balancing force to Neo's existence - and the ending was satisfactory. The various fight sequences were still tediously long, though, and Trinity's death scene was ludicrously unrealistic and protracted.

The decision to split the sequel to *The Matrix* into two separate films was presumably motivated purely by money (hey, we've got all this footage, instead of doing a decent editing job let's use all of it and make the fans pay twice over!). This is emphasised by the fact that there is no proper separation between the two; *Reloaded* ends in the middle of events and *Revolutions* picks up immediately without any kind of lead-in or introduction, so they need to be seen in quick succession or the viewer will lose track of what's going on. The problem is that there is barely enough worthwhile material to make one decent film out of the pair of them. So come on, brothers, now you've made your pile let's have a proper "directors' cut" which will do exactly that, combining the best one-third of *Reloaded* and two-thirds of *Revolutions* to make the single film which always should have been released. Call it *The Matrix Revisited* if you like! This could make a worthy sequel to *The Matrix* - even if it still wouldn't be as good.

One point of detail caught my attention in the first film, concerning the traitor who was tired of the grim reality of life and wanted to be returned to the Matrix, provided that he was assigned a wealthy and famous identity. What intrigued me is that he wanted the memories of his nine years of life outside the Matrix removed so that he would have no idea that his virtual life wasn't real. The thought crossed my mind that if that happened, he wouldn't be the same person; it would be as if he had been killed and a stranger had taken over. So how would he - the essential "he" - have benefited from that?

This reminded me of a similar issue I have mentioned before concerning *Star Trek's* transporter system, in which individuals are scanned and their complete data transmitted elsewhere to be instantly recreated. In this process, their existing bodies are destroyed. No-one would be able to tell the difference between the original and the copy as they are identical in every detail, but in one important respect they are not the same: the original is killed and a copy is made. The copy has all the memories of the original, and believes he is the original, but he isn't. This problem is more clearly laid out in *The Prestige* by Christopher Priest (I haven't read it yet, but I have seen the highly rated film). In this case a copy is made by the Tesla machine but the original remains in existence. So, the key question is this: if you entered the Tesla machine and a copy of you appeared in front of you, would you be happy to be killed, knowing that your exact copy would survive?  Personally, I wouldn't - which means that I would never want to use a Star Trek type of transporter, because that is in effect what happens. 

The same issue of identity is involved in the idea of uploading your mind to a computer so that you can live a virtual and theoretically immortal existence. But it wouldn't really be you living the virtual life, but a copy of yourself - as would be obvious if your corporeal mind remained in existence. Oh well, we won't have any practical cause to worry about such issues for a long time to come…


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 5, 2010)

It's refreshing to see someone out there agrees with me that _Revolutions_ was better than _Reloaded_. For some reason, most people seem to like the latter more, which I *hated*. Whereas the former I merely disliked. I agree with virtually everything you said about the sequels, except for one thing.

I think you're wrong about people's 'taste' (as related to the success of _Reloaded_). I think the box-office hauls of the sequels actually proves that most people actually do have decent taste (though that fails to explain the success of the god-awful _Transformers _sequel). _Reloaded_ made a lot of money because of _The Matrix_. People loved the first so much, they couldn't wait to see the sequel. It's success is not 'amazing', at all; it was entirely predictable. _Revolutions_, however, was the lowest-grossing movie of the trilogy, which shows that most people disliked _Reloaded_ enough that they decided not to bother with the final part.

All is right with world, after all.


----------



## Urien (Apr 5, 2010)

Nice review Anthony. I agree that the Matrix is up there with Blade Runner as an all time SF winner. Unfortunately the advent of the noisier and stupider sequels appears to have diminished the significance of the original.

Anthony has nailed most of the problems with the sequels, here are a few of my more trivial issues.

Zion is hippy world. It's 1970s Age of Aquarius San Francisco down there.

On a related note: The "This is Zion" pagan goat dance.

What's with the arrival of all the extra characters, including the irritating kid?

Neo loses his eyes for the death scene with Trinity, what genius thought that would help him emote?

The APUs defending the dock are not fit for purpose. With a high centre of gravity and up on two legs they're inherently unstable... and they have no face guard or body shield leaving them vulnerable to the stabby squid robots. What was worng with a tank?

And finally... the lack of time in the Matrix, too much real world (Or is it?) undermining the original premise.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 5, 2010)

Also, I can't remember, but was it ever explained how Neo stopped those Sentinels at the end of _Reloaded_? Since Xion* is supposed to be in the 'real' world, he's not supposed to have any special abilities, right?

Or am I forgetting something?



* I just think it looks cooler that way


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 6, 2010)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Also, I can't remember, but was it ever explained how Neo stopped those Sentinels at the end of _Reloaded_? Since Xion* is supposed to be in the 'real' world, he's not supposed to have any special abilities, right?
> 
> Or am I forgetting something?


An interesting point!


----------



## Fried Egg (Apr 6, 2010)

*Anthony*

I agree that the first of the trilogy was by far the best but I think I disagree which of the two sequels I liked least. What really disappointed me about "Revolutions" was the ending. Just a load of mystical BS with nothing really explained. _That_ was the real cop out of it all in my opinion.

I must admit that I am also fascinated by the concept of identity and consciousness. With regards to the teleportation question, I am forced to admit, after countless hours spent pondering the question, that it ultimately comes down to whether you hold a dualistic or mechanistic view of the mind. Is your mind/consciousness/sense of self purely a function of the physical activity of the brain or is there something that exist outside of that function. i.e. a Soul?

I have always thought of myself as taking the mechanistic view but on the other hand I've always felt as you do about teleportation and the destruction of the "original". But now I'm forced to conclude that these positions are mutually exclusive. This is because the concepts of "original" and "copy" have no real meaning if one takes the mechanistic view. What distinguishes the copy from the original? They are constructed identically so is it that they are constructed from different atoms? If so, why should that matter? Even your own body replaces atoms and cells throughout your body as time goes by. Does that mean you are no longer the same person? In "The Prestige", the two individuals that result after using the Tesla machine are _physically_ indistinguishable so how can one argue that one has any greater claim to the "true" identity than the other unless one takes a dualist view in which one could claim that one has a soul while the other does not?

I don't know your views on the matter and perhaps you are a religous person and take a dualistic view anyway so that isn't a dilema for you. For me it was though. And I am forced to conclude that I shouldn't have a problem with being physically destroyed if can be sure that I will be perfectly recreated afterwards (i.e. teleported). Is there any real difference between that and going to sleep, losing consciousness, if I expect to wake up again afterwards?


----------



## biodroid (Apr 6, 2010)

I reckon the sequels were well written and made a lot of sense besides the fact that you had to play the crap game to get more info from the second one. I didn't think they were dissappointing at all. The machines were the enemy and they control the matrix so the machines had to be stopped to put an end to the matrix.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 10, 2010)

Fried Egg said:


> I must admit that I am also fascinated by the concept of identity and consciousness. With regards to the teleportation question, I am forced to admit, after countless hours spent pondering the question, that it ultimately comes down to whether you hold a dualistic or mechanistic view of the mind. Is your mind/consciousness/sense of self purely a function of the physical activity of the brain or is there something that exist outside of that function. i.e. a Soul?
> 
> I have always thought of myself as taking the mechanistic view but on the other hand I've always felt as you do about teleportation and the destruction of the "original". But now I'm forced to conclude that these positions are mutually exclusive. This is because the concepts of "original" and "copy" have no real meaning if one takes the mechanistic view. What distinguishes the copy from the original? They are constructed identically so is it that they are constructed from different atoms? If so, why should that matter? Even your own body replaces atoms and cells throughout your body as time goes by. Does that mean you are no longer the same person? In "The Prestige", the two individuals that result after using the Tesla machine are _physically_ indistinguishable so how can one argue that one has any greater claim to the "true" identity than the other unless one takes a dualist view in which one could claim that one has a soul while the other does not?
> 
> I don't know your views on the matter and perhaps you are a religous person and take a dualistic view anyway so that isn't a dilema for you. For me it was though. And I am forced to conclude that I shouldn't have a problem with being physically destroyed if can be sure that I will be perfectly recreated afterwards (i.e. teleported). Is there any real difference between that and going to sleep, losing consciousness, if I expect to wake up again afterwards?


I am not religious, but I would still be extremely upset, if I were duplicated, at the thought of any of the versions of me being killed. On the other hand, having more than one of me around would cause complications (my wife wouldn't stand for it, for a start!). So I'd pass on the matter transmitter...


----------



## Connavar (Apr 10, 2010)

Very insightful review Anthony.  Specially about the Traitor.  

I always thought it was foolish of him to become so different,plugged in the Matrix again so that it would be like who he was died.  But at the same time if you fought against machines that couldn't die and who you couldn't beat being plugged in again must be better.

Not everyone can be the chosen hero who has major powers.


----------



## steve12553 (Apr 11, 2010)

I still have to treat the sequels to *The Matrix *the same as the prequels to *Star Wars .* They should have been left to the imagination of the film goer and not been made. They started out on top and went down hill. *The Matrix* left me wanting more. The sequels left me wanting less.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm with Steve. The Matrix was imaginative, engaging, very well constructed and different enough to earn a place in the classics. The sequels - well I struggled to watch them in places, and only bothered for the sake of completion. But I wish they had never been made - they have demeaned the quality of the first one just by existing.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Apr 12, 2010)

The Procrastinator said:


> I'm with Steve. The Matrix was imaginative, engaging, very well constructed and different enough to earn a place in the classics. The sequels - well I struggled to watch them in places, and only bothered for the sake of completion. But I wish they had never been made - they have demeaned the quality of the first one just by existing.


 

I could be malicious and call you blind, but that is beneath me. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with any opinion that praises any three of the Matrix films and leave it at that, shall I?


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 12, 2010)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with any opinion that praises any three of the Matrix films



Ah, yes, but which three???


----------



## Fried Egg (Apr 14, 2010)

Anthony G Williams said:


> I am not religious, but I would still be extremely upset, if I were duplicated, at the thought of any of the versions of me being killed. On the other hand, having more than one of me around would cause complications (my wife wouldn't stand for it, for a start!). So I'd pass on the matter transmitter...


Physically, you are being gradually destroyed and replaced over time anyway. The only difference with a teleporter is that the destruction and replacement takes place instantly rather than being drawn out over time.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 14, 2010)

Fried Egg said:


> Physically, you are being gradually destroyed and replaced over time anyway. The only difference with a teleporter is that the destruction and replacement takes place instantly rather than being drawn out over time.


That's one way of looking at it. But the gradual replacement of cells preserves continuity, total destruction and reconstruction doesn't.

I admit that my position involves gut reaction as well as logic; the problem is that such a situation is completely alien to our experience and we have no referents for it, no precedent for fitting it into our world view.


----------



## Fried Egg (Apr 14, 2010)

Anthony G Williams said:


> That's one way of looking at it. But the gradual replacement of cells preserves continuity, total destruction and reconstruction doesn't.
> 
> I admit that my position involves gut reaction as well as logic; the problem is that such a situation is completely alien to our experience and we have no referents for it, no precedent for fitting it into our world view.


What about when your consciousness shuts down when you go to sleep and then resumes activity again when you wake up? We disrupt the continuity of our consciousness every day. Are you really the same person when you wake? How could you tell one way or the other? If someone had transfered your consciousness into a newly constructed body while you were asleep, how could you possibly tell the difference? From a mechanistic perspective what is the difference? Absolutely nothing.

Note: You might counter by suggesting dreams provide the continuity while we are asleep, what about dreamless sleap such as when under the effects of anaesethic?

Additional Node: If continuity is the problem, what if teleportation were instantaneous? If there were no perceptible distruption to one's conscious thought, would that be ok?


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 14, 2010)

But I'm still wearing the same pyjamas when I wake up! surely that is proof enough?


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 14, 2010)

Fried Egg said:


> What about when your consciousness shuts down when you go to sleep and then resumes activity again when you wake up? We disrupt the continuity of our consciousness every day. Are you really the same person when you wake? How could you tell one way or the other? If someone had transfered your consciousness into a newly constructed body while you were asleep, how could you possibly tell the difference? From a mechanistic perspective what is the difference? Absolutely nothing.
> 
> Note: You might counter by suggesting dreams provide the continuity while we are asleep, what about dreamless sleap such as when under the effects of anaesethic?
> 
> Additional Node: If continuity is the problem, what if teleportation were instantaneous? If there were no perceptible distruption to one's conscious thought, would that be ok?


From the mechanistic viewpoint you may be correct, but since neuroscientists and psychologists are some way off reaching agreement on the nature of consciousness, I still wouldn't do it...


----------



## Fried Egg (Apr 14, 2010)

Anthony G Williams said:


> From the mechanistic viewpoint you may be correct, but since neuroscientists and psychologists are some way off reaching agreement on the nature of consciousness, I still wouldn't do it...


To be honest, I probably wouldn't either. Whilst the heads says one thing, the heart says another...


----------



## Metryq (Apr 2, 2011)

While I enjoyed some of the FX in the _Matrix_ sequels, I'm with Steve and Procrastinator in feeling that the sequels shouldn't have been made. As for the traitor, Cypher, why should he believe the machines would honor their deal and reinsert him into the Matrix? Assuming the machines could surgically remove just the few years of his memories outside, and whether or not he'd truly be "the same" person after such, he was gambling on at least making his future self comfortable and happy.

As for the _Trek_ transporter, there is nothing in the _original_ series that explains how it works. Perhaps it is a short range "wormhole," in which case the original is pushed through to the other side. _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ showed Kirk and Saavik actively conversing _as_ they materialized back onto the _Enterprise_. In the episode "Wink of an Eye" the accelerated Scalosians remarked on what a long and tedious process transportation was, and in "That Which Survives" Kirk sees the projection of Losira attack his transport engineer even as he is beaming.

The series opticals switched to a freeze-frame at the beginning of the effect, so one might assume the subjects are frozen in some sort of stasis just before the system scans their physical state. So even if the original was destroyed, there would be no memory of the discontinuity.

Many sci-fi stories have touched upon this identity concept. In John Scalzi's _Old Man's War_ all the warriors are transferred into enhanced bodies. The first person point-of-view describes a brief moment of duality.

In Steven Gould's _Reflex_, sequel to _Jumper_, Davy is experimenting to determine how fast he can teleport. He jumps faster and faster until he is standing face-to-face with himself, a transparent ghost flickering rapidly back and forth. He even reaches out to touch his own hands, palm to palm...

But stories that actually address the topic of duplicates and identity include the trainwreck TV series _Dollhouse_ and the anime feature _The Sky Crawlers_ (highly recommended). _The Sky Crawlers_ could be interpreted as reincarnation, or literally as high-tech duplicates. Ultimately, main character Yuichi concludes that each life should be lived to its fullest.

(I loved the atmosphere of _Sky Crawlers_, especially Kenji Kawai's haunting score. The Sanka fighter plane, modeled after the Kyūshū J7W Shinden, was the perfect "ghost plane" for the eternal Kildren.)


----------

