denbeste.nu— A no-symbology, no-pseudo-philosophical explanation / backstory of the Matrix movies from a programmer's perspective.
Mar 12, 2006View in Crawl 4
Well you don't have to agree/disagree with this take of the movie. It's certainly more understandable and easier to follow for me as I've studied Com Sci. It does fail to address the religious and philosophical references in the movie though, so it's not a complete guide of the movie. It's okay because it never claimed to be one. Take it with a grain of salt and it is a very interesting read. Besides it is just a movie, so no need to take it too seriously.
I like this explanation however it still leaves a hole. If this was true then Neo would have no trouble detecting all machines. He is not seeing the shio aorund him, and seeing as thsoe were most likely created by machines he should see them. So unless the sentience of the machines causes them to emit a particular signal that would not work. *in reply to llynix sorry about that*
Of course programming == engineering. You can do it the old way and pretend it is just art, or do it the new way and accept that it is just like all the other engineering jobs.
The whole idea of human beings as batteries to (electrically) power the machines never made much sense to me, I just shrug that off... but I suppose the matrix could be a construct that requires the human mind to exist. i.e., without people and their inherent ability to virtualize reality, the matrix might not exist. (not unlike that cliche about the tree falling in the forest) It just makes more sense this way methinks.
ugh what a waste of time another one of those "i know more about the matrix then you do" articles.wtf do you have to analyze every bit of it and ruin it for everybody else?just enjoy it for what it is for f**ks sakes!
karkian,I read through the page and enjoyed many of the entries in that list and thought some had good reasoning. However, the final one on the Matrix trilogy had fundamental flaws that should be mentioned. The entire basis of the argument that the actual plot line in the two sequels was filled with "fluff" to compensate for the unfortunate inability to make a prequel was preposterous. He claims that the majority of the second movie is entirely unnecessary based on the claim that Neo's choice in the Architect's chamber did not produce the promised results:"Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash, killing everyone connected to the Matrix, which, coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race." -- The ArchitectIn other words, based off the fact that the human race *wasn't* destroyed after Neo chose to save Trinity, he is claiming a large amount of the plot in Reloaded was fluff and didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. This logic is fundamentally flawed: the entire point of the story focuses on how Neo uses his ultimate powers of free will and choice to PREVENT this from happening. I mean, did he expect the entire race to just go *poof* and die as soon as Neo exited the door to save Trinity? No, the machines first have to kill the inhabitants of Zion, and then the dramatic fluctuations in the Matrix equations caused by the systemic anomaly must grow to a point where the cataclysmic crash *would* occur. Again, the point of all this is what this is what Neo is up against: the extinction of the human race. That's more integral to the plot than anything else, really.It's worth noting that I agree with most things he said in the "So what happened?" section for the Matrix trilogy. It's the conclusion he draws based on the unfortunate inability to make a prequel that make no sense.
number8888Mar 13, 2006
Well you don't have to agree/disagree with this take of the movie. It's certainly more understandable and easier to follow for me as I've studied Com Sci. It does fail to address the religious and philosophical references in the movie though, so it's not a complete guide of the movie. It's okay because it never claimed to be one. Take it with a grain of salt and it is a very interesting read. Besides it is just a movie, so no need to take it too seriously.
supersanMar 13, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.duk0r.net/matrix/,">http://www.duk0r.net/matrix/,</a> this still was the best guide imo
negrosuaveMar 13, 2006
I like this explanation however it still leaves a hole. If this was true then Neo would have no trouble detecting all machines. He is not seeing the shio aorund him, and seeing as thsoe were most likely created by machines he should see them. So unless the sentience of the machines causes them to emit a particular signal that would not work. *in reply to llynix sorry about that*
martinusMar 13, 2006
Of course programming == engineering. You can do it the old way and pretend it is just art, or do it the new way and accept that it is just like all the other engineering jobs.
Closed AccountMar 13, 2006
The whole idea of human beings as batteries to (electrically) power the machines never made much sense to me, I just shrug that off... but I suppose the matrix could be a construct that requires the human mind to exist. i.e., without people and their inherent ability to virtualize reality, the matrix might not exist. (not unlike that cliche about the tree falling in the forest) It just makes more sense this way methinks.
twwixMar 14, 2006
ugh what a waste of time another one of those "i know more about the matrix then you do" articles.wtf do you have to analyze every bit of it and ruin it for everybody else?just enjoy it for what it is for f**ks sakes!
avonejMar 14, 2006
karkian,I read through the page and enjoyed many of the entries in that list and thought some had good reasoning. However, the final one on the Matrix trilogy had fundamental flaws that should be mentioned. The entire basis of the argument that the actual plot line in the two sequels was filled with "fluff" to compensate for the unfortunate inability to make a prequel was preposterous. He claims that the majority of the second movie is entirely unnecessary based on the claim that Neo's choice in the Architect's chamber did not produce the promised results:"Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash, killing everyone connected to the Matrix, which, coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race." -- The ArchitectIn other words, based off the fact that the human race *wasn't* destroyed after Neo chose to save Trinity, he is claiming a large amount of the plot in Reloaded was fluff and didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. This logic is fundamentally flawed: the entire point of the story focuses on how Neo uses his ultimate powers of free will and choice to PREVENT this from happening. I mean, did he expect the entire race to just go *poof* and die as soon as Neo exited the door to save Trinity? No, the machines first have to kill the inhabitants of Zion, and then the dramatic fluctuations in the Matrix equations caused by the systemic anomaly must grow to a point where the cataclysmic crash *would* occur. Again, the point of all this is what this is what Neo is up against: the extinction of the human race. That's more integral to the plot than anything else, really.It's worth noting that I agree with most things he said in the "So what happened?" section for the Matrix trilogy. It's the conclusion he draws based on the unfortunate inability to make a prequel that make no sense.
gwjcMar 15, 2006
I liked this one more: <a class="user" href="http://matrix-explained.com/">http://matrix-explained.com/</a>