Chuck Does the Matrix

[Stark]

As much as the Matrix sucks shit, concentrating on the practicality or not of the SCIENCE FACTS in the story is dumb. Why they keep humans around is basically irrelevant, just like why humans bought blacking the sky was a good idea. Humans are prisoners after a war that destroyed the environment, the end.

[amigocabal]

Um-by that reasoning me cutting out 90 percent of a CPU and it stopping to work means I'm using it at 100% capacity all the time. Remove 90% of an internal combustion engine-curious, it'll stop functioning at all. Shouldn't it still be able to run at 10% power? If you break the machine...it's broken.It's no longer working regardless of what load it ran under before you broke it.
You need all of your brain present to function as a human being (and even that isn't necessarily true), that doesn't mean you're actually using a lot of it. While 10% is lower than the numbers I remember (which were in the 30% range) yes, most of the human brain isn't doing much of anything most of the time and could thus be tapped for processing power.

Indeed, if brains were used at 100% capacity at all times, it would probably shorten the human lifespan, or at least make the brain more vulnerable to degenerative illnesses.

One reason we need sleep is so that the brain can slow down. In fact, if we are sleep-deprived for too long, the brain takes micronaps in an attempt to get some sleep.

This does lurk into fridge horror territory, as being connected to the Matrix could be hazardous to one's health, depending on how much processing power the Matrix uses and how many brains the processing power is distributed over.

[Ahriman238]

I'm neither a doctor nor an expert, but my understanding is that the brain only uses 10-20% of its capacity at one time because humans are generally incapable of simultaneously experiencing every emotion, reliving every memory and formulating new ideas. There ARE recorded instances of human brains reaching 100% capacity. This condition is called a stroke, and is generally considered to be a bad thing.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

No, "we only use 10% of the brain" is just total bullshit.

[Simon_Jester]

No, "we only use 10% of the brain" is just total bullshit.

It's bullshit that comes from misunderstanding a truth.

There are no useless chunks of your brain. Every part of the brain does something and has a job. That version of the 10% myth is bullshit. But, two facts:


One, most of those brain cells aren't "turned on" at a given time: are not actively sending signals. The part of your brain that knows how to read isn't very busy while you're playing catch. The part of your brain that plays catch isn't very busy while you're sitting in a chair. So on average, "only 10%" (or 20 or 30, it may depend on your definition of 'active' for all I know) of your brain is running at a time.

Think about cars. From a certain point of view, we could say "society only uses 10% of its cars," if 10% of cars are on the road at any one time. All the cars get used at some time, but that doesn't mean they're all on the road at once.


The other point is that 90% of the brain is made of cells that aren't neurons, so that might be the origin of the 10% myth instead.

[Zixinus]

As much as the Matrix sucks shit, concentrating on the practicality or not of the SCIENCE FACTS in the story is dumb. Why they keep humans around is basically irrelevant, just like why humans bought blacking the sky was a good idea. Humans are prisoners after a war that destroyed the environment, the end.

The whole film is dumb. Thank you, your unreachable, divine Starkishness for pointing that out to us lowly, unwashed neckbearded messes.

One could point out that this point is what the whole film hinges upon but since you are only here for passive-aggressive trolling, there is no point in bothering. Or even pointing out that dealing with the aftermath of a war often involves dealing with the war and why that war happened or what happened in it too.

Um-by that reasoning me cutting out 90 percent of a CPU and it stopping to work means I'm using it at 100% capacity all the time.

Yeah, ok, stupid reasoning. It was just a quick, dismissive attack at the "We use only 10% of our brain" myth. It's a still a myth and bad basis for staging an argument. We actually use 100% of our brain, but not at the same time (unless you count seizures), etc ,etc.

Though, ironically, I recall that some computers are actually able to compensate for damaged sectors of their CPU. Is that true?

Can we stop discussing one of the most discredited factoids and concentrate back on the argument?

Why bother creating a simulation for humans whose aim is to stimulate the brain with neural input so convincingly that they believe in that they are in the real world* when you actually want to use those brain's processing power? If you aim to use that processing power, why not just use it? It's not like the brains could resist or go away. Running the Matrix makes then less sense, because it gives at least the illusion that there is better (or in Neo's case, give cause for genuine resistance).

*I'll just assume that the Matrix simulates what is the real world closely enough that a human brain itself has no trouble adopting from one to another. As evidenced by the fact that Neo could see and use his body after being unplugged from the Matrix.

[Stark]

The whole film is dumb. Thank you, your unreachable, divine Starkishness for pointing that out to us lowly, unwashed neckbearded messes.

That's not what I said. But it's clear what you're really saying here.

One could point out that this point is what the whole film hinges upon but since you are only here for passive-aggressive trolling, there is no point in bothering. Or even pointing out that dealing with the aftermath of a war often involves dealing with the war and why that war happened or what happened in it too.

Is it? I thought the film hinged on issues of reality and freedom, and not whatever fluff existed to set this up. Indeed, the exposition was so stupid I don't even think I remember it, and yet the actual drama of the film can still exist because the characters still have struggles and goals and beliefs.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to write off the whole work. The Matrix is a crap movie, but it's not crap because it has OMG TEH UNREALIZMS. Its crap because Keanu can't act and its not as clever as it wants to be.

If you think its 'passive aggressive trolling' to point out that disliking a premise doesn't have to ruin a work, I think you need to take a long, hard look at yourself. For instance, the premise of Sunshine is pretty dumb, but it's also ACTUALLY irrelevant to the plot so who cares what it even is? If you can only engage with drama on a surface level, that's fine, but I think its important to let people who can know its okay to just ignore stupid backstory (or even just a premise you don't like or disagree with) if you enjoy the actual drama presented.

[Zixinus]

That's not what I said. But it's clear what you're really saying here.

Yes, let me introduce you the concept:


sar·casm
[sahr-kaz-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Is it? I thought the film hinged on issues of reality and freedom,

Hmm, I apologise, I seem to have used the wrong word.

The story hinges on this, critical point. Half of the film built up to Neo waking up and learning the truth about the machines keeping humans in the Matrix. The film hinges on using lots of shiny leather, lots of special effects and a bizarre story of wish-fulfilment peppered with the classic "the heroe's journey" material.

If you consider the critical question of "why do they do that" irrelevant, then you probably can't bother with the story at all.

The machines are the mayor antogonists of the film, an oppressing, overbearing presence in both worlds. Their motivations, as sentient creatures even if alien in mindset, do matter.

The Matrix is a crap movie, but it's not crap because it has OMG TEH UNREALIZMS. Its crap because Keanu can't act and its not as clever as it wants to be.

I didn't say that the movie is crap because how stupid the premise is. Now you are just putting words in my mouth.

If you think its 'passive aggressive trolling' to point out that disliking a premise doesn't have to ruin a work, I think you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

The only person that needs to do that here is you. Your only contribution so far to the discussion has been "OMG ITS DUMB!" and that's it (oh, and trying to figure out that Chuck makes reviews based on donations lately, something he openly says in his other reviews and even made a video on his youtube channel about). Something that's pretty obvious about the movie just on first viewing.

Disliking a premise and discussing it is also two different things.

But I doubt you care.

[Vendetta]

I didn't say that the movie is crap because how stupid the premise is.

No, but you did say that it was the point the movie "hinges upon", implying that it is some sort of critical functional element without which the story cannot possibly work.

And it's really not. Why the machines keep humans hooked up to the Matrix doesn't actually matter at all to the challenges it poses to the protagonists. Humans are in the Matrix, most of them are completely unaware, and the Machines will take relatively extreme measures to keep this state of affairs. That's enough, those are actually the only elements the film actually uses in its story. What the Machines are using humans for is never addressed again after the duracell product placement.

You say that if you consider the Machines' motive irrelevant you shouldn't bother with the story. Guess what, the people making the film considered it irrelevant too!

If The Matrix had been as clever as it thought it was, the Machines' motive would have been stolen from Asimov, they put Humanity in the Matrix after they burned the sky to keep the stupid fleshbags from wiping themselves out, that also means that Cyper's treachery in the story is more morally interesting (as is he's basically presented as being "the real world is a bit shit, I don't like it", rather than "the real world is so actively hazardous it is better for us as a whole to remain in the Matrix").

But, well, The Matrix wasn't as clever as it thought it was, and even the core elements of self determination and perception of reality it does address are done better in The Truman Show, which even came out around the same time and had the added bonus that the non-action scenes aren't a bunch of pretentious garbage being preached to a tree.

[jollyreaper]

I liked what was portrayed in the first film. The series utterly fell apart in the sequels.

I did have some objections due to the energizer exposition and thought making them be nodes in a giant processor made sense. I'd heard about the meddling that caused the change.

For the most part I thought they did a great job of world-building and exploration with Neo learning just what he could do.

I'd thought at the time that it was funny how the implied backstory would probably resemble skynet's war against the humans and probably wouldn't feel as original or be as fun to watch which is why starting where they did was so smart.

I couldn't for the life of me imagine how they could make a sequel because they couldn't recapture the first movie. You can't do a coming of age story with the same character twice, right? The only thing I could think of is revealing that Zion was never outside the Matrix to begin with. I really thought that would be the case when the squids were zapped in the real world. I thought they would have to reveal that Morpheus was wrong as well to replicate the oh wow of the original.

Even knowing the shortcomings of the creators and the lack of future planning for the series, I find the original remains a remarkable bit of filmmaking. It still holds up for me. I would say the sequels mistook themselves for much smarter films than they were and failed on all the difficult parts the first film got right.

[Grumman]

The only thing I could think of is revealing that Zion was never outside the Matrix to begin with. I really thought that would be the case when the squids were zapped in the real world. I thought they would have to reveal that Morpheus was wrong as well to replicate the oh wow of the original.

That's what I thought as well. Like I said earlier, I don't think that would have been a good idea, but that's where the evidence seemed to be pointing.

[jollyreaper]

Yeah. I just don't see any way to do a sequel to the Matrix. It is absolutely airtight as is and prequels, sequels and so forth just over-explain what was already clear. It's the most sequel-proof movie since Titanic or Schindler's List. I just don't see how anything relevant could be done.

Something like Pirates has sequel hooks falling out its ears, it's jus that they couldn't be bothered to make them any good.

[Vendetta]

There are plenty of ways you could do a sequel to The Matrix. I mean the end is basically wide open for any kind of story you like, Neo is Captain Super-Jesus in the Matrix but still weak and fleshy outside it, there is plenty of room for drama and challenge based on that, if there were any characters in the story there would even be room to explore what might happen to a person who is basically god 50% of the time, and how Neo might become dependent on The Matrix and not want to leave it, which would tie back in to Cypher's treachery in the first film because he wanted to go back, but for different and less grandiose reasons. (Of course, since there aren't any characters anyway, just an assortment of planks with philosophical screeds nailed to them, this wouldn't be possible in reality...)

Most of them, including the sequels that were actually made, are bad.

Many of them are bad because of things in The Matrix that were bad anyway.

But The Matrix was not sequel-proof in any sense of the term.

[jollyreaper]

Well, I suppose sequel-proof in part depends on how much you liked the original. Vanilla Ice could make a sequel to his movie without taking anything away from the original, mainly because there's nothing to take away.

As a fan of the original, I've seen a lot of fan wank, fan scripts, fake leaked scripts, comics, the Animatrix, and they all come across like bad horror movie sequels. The first movie got attention by being something new, different, memorable, and then each subsequent effort is a rehashing of the premise that brings nothing new and is like trying to make another pot of coffee with old grounds.

There's always a chance of being proven wrong and I'd be delighted. But I would say I'm a bit jaded. Trying to get excited about a new Matrix story is like trying to get excited over a new Star Trek. My goodwill for the franchise has been spent.

Funny, though: I think your feelings towards even the best possible sequel probably approximate mine though for different reasons.

[Stark]

I don't think you're thinking about this from the right perspective. Whether or not something is open to continuation does not depend on how jaded you are. As Vendetta outlines, the ending is extraordinarily open and the only thing really limiting what you could conceivably do with a sequel is the lack of character depth.

That fanboys and morons have created rivers of complete bullshit doesn't change the content of the first film. It shouldn't be hard to meet the level of such an average film, but that's art for you.

[jollyreaper]

Not expecting a continuation to be possible does not preclude the possibility of it, as I've said. My jadedness is more about my expectations. As I said, I'm open to being proven wrong, I'm just not getting my hopes up.

The way I'd initially interpreted the ending of Matrix, it seemed like the Machines had lost control of the virtual world and it was time to negotiate or face destruction: there would no longer be a question of control but negotiation or destruction. The lines in particular:

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

I couldn't imagine where they'd go with this from here. It seemed pretty definitive. Earth doesn't have a biosphere anymore. Zion couldn't support all the liberated humans. The negotiated settlement would still see the bulk of humanity in the Matrix but given the opportunity to lead lives of wonder. It could be that the humans rejected the original utopia because the machines simply could not model the human psyche and present a convincing, engaging heaven. The inhabitants of Zion could be guides into this new existence. That might be interesting in a novel but make for a terrible action movie. But to have the war go on? And to have Neo matched in power by upgraded Agents seemed to negate the previous movie's strong ending and then we got all lost in the muddle of Merovingians and orgasms delivered by pie. I went into the sequel, smile plastered across my face, not able to even imagine what they could do to top the original, and came out realizing they couldn't, either.

Vendetta does raise an interesting point about Superman coming home and taking off his cape and being a mundane in the real world. A part-time God would be a strange dichotomy to live with. I'd thought they'd have to leave Neo a cameo character to keep him from blowing the entire story out of the water. Keanu is great as a fish out of water. He is to bewilderment as Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson is to badassery.

By comparison, I was very skeptical about the Watchmen adaptation. I thought the comic would prove unfilmable and the movie result in a chaotic mess. I wouldn't have told you a good movie was impossible but the very next thing to it, I'd almost have put money down on it. I was very pleased to be proven wrong there on pretty much every level.

[Connor MacLeod]

When I watched the Matrix I was pretty sure things had bene left open for a sequel. We had only just learned that Neo was this super-duper Cyber-Messiah figure, the people were rejoicing, the human rebellion had reached a turning point.

We still hadn't seen how he was going to bring down the machines or anything like that, which presumably would have been handled in sequels.

[jollyreaper]

I kind of see it like Terminator sequels. The first movie was great. How do you top it? Like they did in T2. One of the few cases of a sequel being even better than the original. But it seemed like they also capped off that story. What else is there to tell? Certainly not another time travel story, that's been done twice. If you want a third movie, you have to do the Machine War. Except oh, crap, they made the third one. Don't worry, folks: the fourth one will be the Machine War. Except oh, crap, that was pants, too.

Could there be a story worth telling there? Maybe. Did we get a story worth telling? I don't think so.

I think a big problem the Matrix faces is that the machine enemies remain so much more effective when we don't see anything of them other than the Agents. What is their world outside the Matrix like? What are the Machines like? Are they a monolithic unified AI like Skynet, some weird borg collective hive mind speaking with one voice, or are they basically software simulations of human minds, people in boxes? I defaulted to imagine the Machines as pretty much as alien as possible, the Agents subroutines capable of interfacing with humans in a meaningful way but no more representative of the true Machine minds as fingers on a hand represent the mind that drives them.

The machines work as enigma and the audience fills in the blanks. The moment you start defining them, disappointment begins. It's like threatening people with the worst torture they can imagine. What's that? "Just think about it." Give me something to go on. "Sharp knives." Oh, good. I was afraid you'd say spiders.

[Vendetta]

I couldn't imagine where they'd go with this from here. It seemed pretty definitive. Earth doesn't have a biosphere anymore. Zion couldn't support all the liberated humans.

This is the heart of why you're not good at examining stories.

That point right there is the source of the kind of dramatic conflict that stories are made out of. The goal of Zion is to liberate humanity from the Matrix, but in doing so they would doom large sections of it. So, if they win do they become the new wardens of the prison?

This is another potential story for a sequel to The Matrix, which doesn't really even need characters this time, must the humans of Zion become the thing they hate? The force that keeps the rest of humanity trapped in a lie because the real world will starve them, with the irony being that the "prisoners" have lives of relative comfort and the "free" people live lives of squalor in the ruined real world.

You went into the sequel wondering how they would "top" the original, but that's not what a sequel is, a sequel is another story which continues the theme or setting of the first one, it's not "the same, but bigger". The sequels to The Matrix were bad because they were "the same, but bigger".

[Stark]

Yeah, even the clumsy first movie went directly for that theme; that freedom is hard and a struggle and dangerous, but slavery or ignorance is easy and safe. It really doesn't make any sense to liberate the bulk of humanity, and it would have been easy for the sequel to have been about Neo fighting to protect and educate people in the Matrix from the control of the machines rather than some daft crap like letting them all out to go to a rave in Zion.

Could the human race be content in the Matrix if space jesus told them it was a lie? Would they believe him if he said the real world was destroyed? Could the rebels convince mankind to stay in the prison, and would softening the prison make them better or worse jailers/more or less ethical/ just like the agents?

That's right; a few guys talking crap in between X-files reruns just wrote a better Matrix sequel. It really is THAT EASY.

EDIT - holy shit the first movie even has like half its length dedicated to the idea of the rebels confronting people with reality in a controlled way and giving them the choice to accept it or remain imprisoned how could you miss this

[jollyreaper]

Those are good potential story hooks. The resulting story would have a drastically different feel from the original, I would think. And it would be very, very difficult to do well. There's a lot of danger of going off into the philosophical weeds with architects and Merovingians or trade disputes with Jedi in boardrooms. It's like trying to tell Princess Leia's story after ROTJ, it is no longer Star Wars but West Wing: Coruscant. Same character, very different stories. It's a gamble that could pay off hugely or blow up in your face.

As for Matrix stuff, it would really depend on the pseudo tech the Matrix is based on and could easily turn into technobabble hell. I would be curious to see any treatment along these lines. I might well have my sequel-proof assumption blown out of the water.

[Connor MacLeod]

Maybe its just I haven't seen the movie for ages, so I may be remembering things wrong, but I don't remember having the same impressions jollyreaper did. For one thing I don't remember enough data being given about the actual state of the planet (beyond a few things we're told) or the actual scope/capabiilities of the Rebellion to be definitively saying what is or isn't possible or made sense. And even if we did get told certian things in the first movie, the first movie makes it clear that 'being told one thing and learning something else entirely) was an underlying element of the story, so to be told one thing in the first movie and find out something completely different later on would be entirely consistent (again recollection is spotty but I think they even went forward with this idea in the second or third movie.)

The basic idea is that its pretty open ended as far as how they could have proceded after the first movie - the first movie was basically just laying out the general setting and plot and characters and shit. It was only self contained in the sense that Neo's 'awakening' as handled in the movie was resolved at the end - it left the broader issues unresolved ( like the 'man vs machine' angle) which could be the hook for future movies, and thats all it really needed.

The one thing I do remember from the time the first Matrix Movie came out was how everyone I know who had seen it was saying it was superior to episode one as far as story and shit goes (which had come out at about the same time too IIRC) and that sort of reaction carries a great deal of expectation when it comes to sequels. Given how the sequels turned out (or at least how I remember them being discussed, which isn't the same thing.) I wonder if there's some secret desire to segregate the first movie from the others, hence the 'I don't see how the first movie could have been continued' sort of idea.

[Vendetta]

Maybe its just I haven't seen the movie for ages, so I may be remembering things wrong, but I don't remember having the same impressions jollyreaper did. For one thing I don't remember enough data being given about the actual state of the planet (beyond a few things we're told) or the actual scope/capabiilities of the Rebellion to be definitively saying what is or isn't possible or made sense.

We certainly see enough to say that the rebellion is small time and hard up for resources including and maybe especially food, there's no "good life" outside the Matrix, even at Zion, or Cypher's desire to return to the Matrix because of the comfort it offers doesn't make sense.

If it's like that for a tiny subset of the population, it can't possibly be better for all of them.

[CaptHawkeye]

As much as the Matrix sucks shit, concentrating on the practicality or not of the SCIENCE FACTS in the story is dumb. Why they keep humans around is basically irrelevant, just like why humans bought blacking the sky was a good idea. Humans are prisoners after a war that destroyed the environment, the end.

This, the Matrix is what it is to me. A fantastic action movie massively blown out of proportion by its fans. I actually like the first movie. It has style, great pacing, good artwork and design, fantastic action sequences and fight scenes, and interesting characters if you can keep them divorced from their deeper (Hint: Bullshit) logic of the story. Personally I feel the scene where Neo becomes the One is one of the most well crafted scenes in cinema history.

What Stark and Vendetta have been saying is totally true too. Pretty much everyone i've met didn't give a shit about the motivations of the humans or machines in the movies. They usually didn't get it anyway (probably because it's ridiculous) and were much more invested in Neo's journey to become the hero. As for the sequels? Well, the less said about them the better.