Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 1

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * If we knew the science behind the pods, perhaps then we would know the exact purpose of human use. Perhaps the pods include a system of transistors and amplifiers that work to enhance the productivity of the brain, and its output?--Cuardaim 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Humans do not generate energy. They can convert energy from one form into another (say glucose into ATP), but do so terribly inefficiently.  The power source application from the Matrix is ridiculous.  I'm a fan, but I recognize that this is impossible.  I think the line "combined with a form of fusion" is clear evidence of the creators' acceptance that this is impossible (a "form" of a technology we don't possess). -alhead


 * There is, no such thing as The Matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.5.58 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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

-Raidzuo

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

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


 * Have you seen the AniMatrix? Sorry, but that's just not what happened. --Nerd42 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw some episodes, but what do you mean by saying 'happened'? Nothing is hapenned actually, it is a fantastic! :) Dims 08:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all the animatrix clearly explains the origins of the human power plant and the first matrix...also, Your syntax is so bizarre i really have no idea what you are saying.Solidusspriggan 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my English! I saw some animatrixes, but didn't find these reasons. May be they explained in other parts. What are they are? Anyway, Matrix, Animatrix and reality must not share the same model. Dims 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the animatrix shorts called "The Second Renaissance Part 1" outlines the rise of the machines and "The Second Renaissance Part 2" shows the fall of humanity. The animmatrix and the matrix movies do share the same models and certain Animatrices even tie directly into matrix reloaded "Kid Story" shows how The Kid was saved and "Final Flight of the Osiris" is referred to by Niobe during the captain's meeting in reloaded when she speaks about "these geotherms confirm....".  Solidusspriggan 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, using your knowledge, can you explain, why machines use human power, while they have nuclear one? Dims 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of rational explanations. First, perhaps the nuclear energy was all used up during the estimated 200 years of world war. Second, "The Matrix" says "combined with a form of fusion" so we don't actually know if it's purely human power nor what the output is. In "The Second Renaissance Part 2", the machines study human biology apparently out of curiosity, before their intent to enslave. There are many other reasons to study human biology and also the human race's ongoing technological and philosophical advancement within The Matrix, but this is just not the reason given for their actions in the franchise. -- xlynx (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I may point that you are WRONG. We use our energy, in talking, walking running, playing, smoking (excluding thinking). all these activities were vanished, and the machines will be able still to use us as a source of energy. 3:29 am EDT, 17 July 2006 John aTr
 * Irrelevant. Even sitting still, the human body doesn't produce energy. The amount it simply stores will be less than the amount put into it through food and ozygen. --Daniel 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw wristwatch, which was powered with shaking hand while walking. Dims 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Daniel. While the practicality of using humans as an energy source is vaguely understandable, it seems more logical that the machines would harness human logic. While the machines are advanced AI, humans are still logical.--Cuardaim 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

mormon influence?
It seems to me like in addition to all the other religoius angles, the Mormon concept of Zion has been thrown in there pretty heavily, especially in Reloaded. --Nerd42 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of religions use the term Zion. It's not new or specific to Mormonism.  -- T y l e r d m a c e  ( talk  ·  contr ) 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ok before mormonisms, there were still orgies and polygamy. -- • Storkian • 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn that Zion was more associated with Judaism than Mormonism (mostly because few people know much about mormonism). You know like Zionism and Mount Zion in Jerusalem? TheArchaeologist 09:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

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

-- Nick RTalk 11:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There is more to the series than just the three main films. There are also the comics, the videogames and The Animatrix, and moving the page to "Trilogy" would prevent discussion of those additional aspects of the franchise. I suppose The Matrix franchise would be acceptable, but personally I prefer "series".
 * 2) If the move had been right (it's not, for the reason above), I don't think that "trilogy" should have been capitalised. :)


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

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

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


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

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


 * Well considering the anime directors and producers they were attracted to to create the animatrix series(talked about in various special features) it can be reasoned that at least one anime from each creator was admired by and inspired the brothers. for instance, I'm sure Aeon Flux was the draw for peter cheung as it is similar to the matrix in many respects and watching his other work that was done before the matrix, Reign, it is obvious that that isnt reflected in the matrix films.


 * By the same logic, I suppose the comic book artwork of Steve Skroce and Geof Darrow must have had some impact, since they were chosen to provide the storyboards and concept art for the films. -- Nick RTalk 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Is their a citation for this or is this just a speculation, as "pratical" as these reasons may be surely the sunglasses were a purely a "wardrobe" and style issue.--195.171.131.151 14:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Lucas
 * I agree; I've added a Fact notice to draw attention to it. -- Nick RTalk 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This was given a mention by the production team in some of the vast pile of Making Of material they produced, however the brief (I think two-sentence) mention doesn't make it clear whether they thought of it during costume design - it might've been realised when shooting began. So without an unambigious source, yes, it should've been gone. Sockatume 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, if you consider all the philosophical viewpoints expressed in the movie, it is difficult to assume that any part of the costume was simply 'practical'. It seems to me that even something as simple as sunglasses have a significant effect on the movie. Consider that the sunglasses cast a reflection of the things around them, and that the camera often focuses on those reflections. Consider, too, that the only time sunglasses are worn is in the Matrix. If you look at the philosopical aguments of Plato and the Allegory of the Cave, you would see that the reflections of the world inside the Matrix are there to show alternate realities of an un-reality. Nira 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nira

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

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

Critical Reception
eXistenZ + ghost in the shell + neuromancer + steampunk = the matrix Someone should mention eXistenZ. 195.23.102.126 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Å== Apostrophe Abuse ==

lol, Firsfron... This seems too trivial to edit war about, and I seem to be a minority on this one. Maybe someone can set me straight. There's a sentence in the article that reads Any system which is open with its environment can freely produce more energy than the operator has to input. I interpret this as: the environment belongs to the system, so it is posessive. It is my understanding that when speaking in the posessive context there should be an apostrophe. Example: "David's shoelace is untied" instead of "Davids shoelace is untied." The shoelace belongs to David. But this is speaking about a person's belonging. What of a belonging of an object? "My car's tire is flat" or "My cars tire is flat?" What about "I wrecked my car. Its tire is flat" or "I wrecked my car.  It's tire is flat?" Which of these is correct? --Graveenib 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per this grammar site (and 1,000 others), "it's" means "it is" or "it has", never "belonging to it". Cheers! :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable...VdSV9• ♫ 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not very, if German is his native tongue, it makes sense why he would be confused. You can say Claudia's lesson as Claudias Vorlesung or use the genitive case which I don't know about. TheArchaeologist 09:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Did Kim Barrett say in an interview her influence was from Blade? Did the Wachowskis?  Until this info is verified, I disaree. --Graveenib 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also disagree for those reasons. But also because if we mentioned every film/story where the world is being run by a secret society, we'd end up with thousands of references.Shamess 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * I think the host's "file" is just deleted. And they're most probably removed from their pod in the "farms". If we consider the Matrix to be like a normal computer, I don't think there's a way to overright a file but keep the existing file in the background somewhere. Shamess 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would personally believe that the innocent victims of an agent take over would more than likely go through a "reboot" of sorts. Seeing as how the Matrix runs off of humans, I could understand a form of "surge protection." Neo and the other individuals freed of the Matrix can be killed either in or out of the Matrix. I think this is due to the fact that they are no longer protected by the mainframe.--Cuardaim 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that different rules apply to those enslaved in the matrix and those hacking into it. The rules are said to be built into the virtual world, and influenced by the mind of the individual. This is evidenced by Neo's lack of special abilities after his liberation, until he is personally developed, and by the fact he can still get hurt in a training program because "your mind makes it real".
 * While it's true that the machines can manipulate the physical makeup of the matrix (eg. placing a wall where there wasn't one), they don't seem to be able to change an individual's memories except through conventional means. This is logical because those memories are stored in a human brain whereas it's reasonable to assume the matrix is stored as code on computer hardware. There is evidence of this because an operator can tell what people say in the matrix, but can't read their minds (Program), and due to the common belief that no one can "forget" and go back (it is likely the agents lie to the traitors about this). Therefore It would be difficult to reverse some ones death or assimilation as experienced by the individual and as witnessed by others.
 * Anything the agents can't cover up becomes the supernatural mysteries of the world we know today (eg. Neo and Ash remember their encounters with the agents as a vivid dream as if they were drugged, in Beyond there is no attempt to erase peoples memory of the Haunted House, and de ja vu is a matrix phenomena caused by them changing something).
 * If innocents die in the virtual world, their mind should "make it real" too, if anything, even more so, since their brain absolutely believes it to be real, unlike the rebels who at least subconsciously know the state of reality at all times. It is also stated that an individuals appearance in the matrix represents their mental self image, so if someone died it would be difficult to reinsert them as someone else.
 * Perhaps the best evidence that once assimilated you're lost, is in A Detective Story where Trinity apparently shoots Ash out of mercy rather than to make her own escape. -- xlynx (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not hypocritical at all. In the first movie during the "woman in the red dress" section Morpheus clearly states "The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see. Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." (my emphasis) This implies several things; 1) that people like Morpheus and Neo are free from the Matrix and are fighting to destroy it.(duh!) 2) Anyone not free of The Matrix is a part of The Matrix (A "not part of the Solution - Part of the Problem" mind set.) 3) Morpheus comments that people will "fight to protect" the Matrix coupled with the section where the detective Ash resists the agents takeover in the Animatrix story "Detective Story" implies that once people start to reject the reality of the Matrix that they start to reject the "rules" of the matrix including allowing Agents control of their bodies, Trinity shooting Ash implies that anyone who is capable of being controlled by the agents (even if they are able to resist as he can, it's still implied they could control him) is not ready to reject the matrix and is therefore their "enemy". 4) That people can wholly reject The Matrix (like Morpheus and Neo), people can partially reject The Matrix (the potentials, Ash), "nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level." - The Architect (Reloaded) and that some people embrace the falseness of The Matrix in it's entirety (it's implied the police force and possibly the entire law enforcement/Military.) In the movies it's portrayed that Morpheus is trying to find The One to save humanity, however it the original scripts (for all three of the trilogy) it's made much clearer that Morpheus wants to destroy all the Machines irrelevant of cost even if that includes the destruction of 99% of the human population. So your assumption that people in the Matrix are "innocent" is false (at least according to Morpheus), the only "innocent" people are the Zionists. I would also assume that a pod-person taken over by an agent either has no memories of the event (supported by The Matrix comics) or experiences a form of sleepwalking/lucid dreaming.203.59.139.164 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Philosophy
Okkie this movie is very very philosophical, its mainly about Rene descartes "the cave" story —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

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

Matrixism sourcing
As previous anonymous edits promoting Matrixism have, in the past, proposed falsified or dubious sources, I think it's prudent to withhold references to print or otherwise not-readily-verifiable sources on the matter pending verification by an editor. If someone would like to verify these sources, please share your results here. Philwelch 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In your edit summaries you have recently described sourced content as 'bullshit' and implied other editors are biased - in this context, I consider your involvement to be unhelpful. Your edits have removed reliably published work by scholars, for example:
 * the contents of which are explained in other references:
 * In this context, I have restored the references you deleted. Addhoc 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that this sort of content has been continually removed by consensus from multiple articles over the past two years, and given further that many supposed references (Possamai's in particular) have been discredited in the past by editors who have actually studied the sources referenced, it's not prudent to accept further supposed references without question until they've been verified. Philwelch 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note, Matrixism is largely tangential to the subject at hand—if it should be covered in Wikipedia at all, it should be in a separate article. Philwelch 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil, a reliably published book by an academic who specializes in a relevant field of study, that has received media coverage in further reliable sources, isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "supposed" reference. Your arguments appear to be nothing more than a lengthy rendition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Addhoc 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I say it's a "supposed" reference because further review of the Possamai reference has already shown nothing more than a passing mention. A reference not only needs to be from a reliable source, it also has to back up the statement it is purported to back up. I've dealt with this attempt at self-promotion for longer than you've been editing Wikipedia at all. Just because a blatant attempt at self-promotion turned into a thinly-veiled attempt at self promotion doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of Wikipedia, no matter how thick the veil has become in the interceding years. That is what's driving my arguments here. It may be that persistence will defeat reason here—maybe our anonymous "Matrixism" enthusiast cares more about promoting his Geocities page than I care about protecting Wikipedia. He has certainly been at this long enough to trick a loyal cadre of legitimate editors into helping him out, long after most of the people who remember his vandalism campaigns have lost interest or given up. Philwelch 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm never impressed by editors who argue they must be right because they have been editing longer / their edit count is higher, which is usually a sign of desperation. You have infringed Wikipedia's policies in the last week, for example by leaving uncivil edit summaries, so arguing that another editor must be wrong, because they violated policy last year isn't convincing. Addhoc 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have significant relevant experience dealing with this issue. My objective was not to impress you but to respond to your uncivil mischaracterization of my motivations here. If you are going to continue trolling and refusing to deal seriously with the issue then I suggest you leave well enough alone. Philwelch 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil, I disagree with you about this issue and consider your edit summary of "bullshit" uncivil, however that doesn't give you the right to call me a troll. Addhoc 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to mischaracterize everything I say, ignore when I refute your arguments, and then pour scorn on me for correcting your misunderstandings. I have the right to identify that kind of behavior for what it is. Philwelch 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil, while I obviously don't agree that I'm a troll, your recent edits have been constructive. The current version, where the Matrixism text is part of the 'Reputation and influence' section is a reasonable compromise. Addhoc 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil, I disagree with you about this issue and consider your edit summary of "bullshit" uncivil, however that doesn't give you the right to call me a troll. Addhoc 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to mischaracterize everything I say, ignore when I refute your arguments, and then pour scorn on me for correcting your misunderstandings. I have the right to identify that kind of behavior for what it is. Philwelch 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil, while I obviously don't agree that I'm a troll, your recent edits have been constructive. The current version, where the Matrixism text is part of the 'Reputation and influence' section is a reasonable compromise. Addhoc 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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


 * As there have been no objections, I've removed the subsection and restored the full article at Matrixism. Philwelch 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I object. I saw a great many "merge and redirect" recommendations in the AFDs I looked at, what are you looking at that says "delete and destroy all the material" or "keep as a separate article" ? StuRat 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And I've merged it back, being as there was strong consensus for not having the article, and twelve hours, mostly overnight, is scarcely long enough for any discussion to emerge anyway. If you want the matrixism article back, go to deletion review. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't—my eventual goal was to AFD it. The content certainly doesn't belong here, however, since it reads like a tangential, separate article poorly grafted on. AFD would be an easier and more definitive form of consensus-building than talking about it here, at Talk:Matrixism, on my talk page, at ANI, and at the variety of other scattered venues this has taken place. And any past "strong consensus" was for not having the content at all—that consensus does not clearly and obviously apply to the new content. Philwelch 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments by Guy on the WP:AN/I noticeboard - a trimmed version isn't objectionable. Addhoc 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Removed section
I removed the following text added without discussion: "Usually with movie trilogies, in the first two movies there are not-so-blatant signs of Christianity that people NEVER notice. However, upon the third movie, or any final installment of a series, whether it be movies or books, the Christian themes are made so blatantly evident. When this trend started, we can only guess. In Spider-Man 3, Peter Parker's only hope to save himself is to enter a church and use the bell to remove what's ailing him; in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry visits a church for the first time in the series, on Christmas, and discovers Bible passages, and in the chapter called Deathly Hallows we see the Holy Trinity in it's most evident form, as well as the Christian method for indentifying one Christian to another (a cross worn 'round the neck); in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle, God makes a blatant appearance, tearing away the guise of the lion Aslan. In The Matrix Revolution, it seems most people, even Christians, wrongly see the machines as the bad guys, but this may in fact be very wrong. In fact, it seems that the machines can be liken to angels and the Architect liken to God, the humans of Zion are the rebel angels, rebel angels or rebel humans who, in the end, are saved by the messiah Neo (liken to Jesus Christ) who, even though he comes from another place (the Machine City, or Heaven) he lays down his life for the rebel angels or rebel humans. This theory came about for a few after the Architect laid down a dead Neo and said, "It is done." A direct statement that can be liken to the one that is uttered when the messiah Jesus Christ is murdered for the sake of a rebellious humanity. Or, think of it this way... EVERYTHING living in The Matrix films, comes from the Machine City, from the Architect: the good and the bad. In the end, through the sacrifice of Neo, the Architect has compassion on the rebel humans who deserted The Matrix."

Addhoc 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * While much of this WP:OR, etc. This actually was discussed in the commentary by Cornell West. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Anon edit war on external links
There are two anon editors warring over the external links of this article. Rather than engaging in constant reverting, please discuss a solution here. As neither of the links being warred over appears to me to be vital to the article and barely comply with the external links guidelines I suggest that the simplest solution is to remove both links from the article. —Jeremy (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The website for Matrixism: The path of the One, as opposed to Matrixism: Science and Philosophy of The Matrix, has its URL referred to by numerous sources cited in this article as the "official" website for Matrixism. The Matrixism: Science and Philosophy of The Matrix has zero citations. TR166ER (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Matrix reloaded ver14.jpg
The image Image:Matrix reloaded ver14.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:The Matrix Poster.jpg
 * Image:The Matrix Online Coverart.png
 * Image:Pathofneobox.jpg
 * Image:Matrix revolutions ver2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding origin of concept
Why is there nothing in this article detailing the origin of concept (a heavily discussed ordeal)? Am I missing something?  -- T y l e r d m a c e  ( talk  ·  contr ) 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Plot
surely the biggest thing missing on here is a summary of the plot? when people type "the matrix" into wikipedia, they're not looking for all the philosophical reasons behind it, and stuff. they want to find out what the movie is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthinpants (talk • contribs) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Matrix Series or The Matrix Franchise?
The article appears to be about the three Martix films (The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions) and pays lip service to, or glosses over, the rest (The Animatrix, Enter the Matrix, The Matrix: Path of Neo, The Comics and The Matrix Online) could the article be expanded/re-written to reflect the Franchise as a whole. I would rather get a Consensus than be a "man on a mission" and start a BOLD/REVERT edit war. 203.59.139.164 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NCF, the title of this page should be renamed to either The Matrix (film series) or The Matrix (franchise). I'm quite suprised that there isn't a good quality article on the whole franchise, at the moment, think this page should be The Matrix (film series)) until article is updated.  Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lead section
My changes were just undone. I will undo that undo, but here are the reasons why:

My version is far from ideal, but I do think it's an improvement over the one to which it was reverted. -- Nick RTalk 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Opening with "The Matrix franchise is a trilogy of films" implies that the three movies are all that's there - which is then contradicted a few sentences later when comics, videogames and cartoons are mentioned. Using "primarily comprises" solves this problem by acknowledging that what's in the first sentence isn't a complete list.
 * Either "franchise" or "series" could be used, but the latter matches the page title.
 * As for the genre SF-adventure film or SF-action film: personally I prefer the latter because it more accurately reflects the amount of focus the the films have on martial arts and gunplay.
 * "Two sequels were released" is to the point. "Greenlighted" (or greenlit) could mean that they were announced but never completed.
 * Having the sequels' exact release dates in parentheses doesn't flow well for me. The year 2003 is all that's needed for the lead section.
 * I'd agree the use of primarily comprises but perhaps it could be expanded that it surrounds the film series as all others are offshots off the film. science fiction action makes more sense and follows this source: as well. Toss out the greenlit note. Your version makes far more sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
There is no section associating with controversy. It should be added. Two big ones that stick out is"The Mother of The Matrix," the woman who said to have original have written it and The Columbine attack. The Greatest Show On Earth (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Adventure?
Do the Matrix films really qualify as adventure films? I don't see that they are, but one anon editor seems to think so, even though he/she unwilling to discuss their reasoning. magnius (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This user has seemed to left vandalism. If you see there editing they were being vandalizing other pages such as claiming The Godfather isn't a crime film. I can see very minutely how the series could be called an adventure, but we'd find much more sources I'm sure of sources calling it either action or science fiction or both. In general, we should keep it simple. Other then that one editor, When people talk about the Matrix film series they don't generally say "oh yeah! Great adventure film!" they'd say "Awesome sci-fi" or "great action" or something like that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From the adventure movie article, "An outlaw fighting for justice or battling a tyrant (e.g., Robin Hood, Zorro or Star Wars)" Neo fights for justice and battles a tyrant (Agent Smith). 201.68.51.6 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The adventure film article does not seem to be sourced for this. Allmovie states that "The adventure film, similar in many ways to the action film, involves a character who must overcome great adversity and challenges while on a journey. The settings tend to be exotic locales, the villains tend to be nasty, the emphasis tends to be on thrills, often serialized over several Saturday matinee showings."Source. The locations in this film aren't exactly exotic like they are in Star Wars for example where we are going to desert planets and jungle planets. Their essay on the genre also explains the difference between the genres. From this research, I think the Matrix is far more concerned with action than it is with adventure and adventure should not be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
move to The Matrix (franchise). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Matrix (series) → The Matrix (film series) — Article should be renamed as per WP:NCF. As other media in the series is not given full coverage, don't think that the article should be The Matrix (franchise) just yet unless further work is done to the relevant sections, but article needs to be titled one or the other. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Prefer The Matrix (franchise), since it does cover video games (quite a bit actually) and The Animatrix. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly suprised at how little depth this article goes into on these subjects, given the fanbase, but either works for me. Not a fan personally, just think the article title should follow naming conventions.  Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also prefer The Matrix (franchise): Article needs to be expanded anyway to anclude all the related goods and chattles associated with the films. Anyway "series" makes it sound like a TV series!  Jubilee♫ clipman  20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * okay, lets go with The Matrix (franchise) - Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I too would prefer The Matrix (franchise). Should the move be made immediately, or should it wait until after the implementation of whatever changes are decided on the Matrix (fictional universe) and Influences and interpretations of The Matrix AFD pages? -- Nick RTalk 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Language Style
Seriously? The language style is awful! Did a fourteen year-old fanboy write this whole article? Beau Martínez(Talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Invalid citation in the "Influences and interpretations" section?
I took a look at the source listed in the first paragraph of the "Influences and interpretations" section, and after I read the source, only the similarities to Cyberpunk are listed. That source is a blog where a viewer posted about similarities between the first movie and Cyberpunk, so even if it listed any influences, it is by nature not a reliable source for them (unless it's a blog known to be by the director/writer/etc.). Every other influence and interpretation in that paragraph are not included in that source, and as far as I can tell, not included in any other sources. I found this revision where the change occurred, and it seems the sentence stating that "Neo" is an anagram of "one" and giving the reason why had its "citation needed" tag removed also, without any source given. As of February 21st, there have been 16 revisions since that one, and it seems no one caught it yet.

Should the "citation needed" tags be put back where they were? IBFP EMDF (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is William Gibson's blog, so his comments on the film are an appropriate thing to link to in the context of a comparison to Neuromancer. However, as a reference, a comment from a reviewer or academic would probably be preferable. Personally I think all those Template:Citation needed tags should be restored (and also added to the equivalent list in the article The Matrix), unless there's something in the template's guidelines that specifically recommends against using it repeatedly after every single entry in a list. -- Nick RTalk 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realize that blog belonged to someone who played a big part in the cyberpunk scene. I've gone ahead and re-added the citation tags in their original places. IBFP EMDF (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Source the rebuttal
I can understand where the rumours of the fourth and fifth Matrix movies came from, but could you please source it. It would make it that more creditable. Thank you.--109.153.60.76 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Larry to Lana
Should all references to Larry now use the preferred name Lana? The only similar case I can think of is Wendy Carlos, but the relevant creative works were produced following her gender transition/sex reassignment. Nathanaelbassett (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be simply the odd individual announcing what the consensus is with regard to this, whereas it is flagrantly misrepresentative to still describe someone as their old name. This is not even with regard to referring to 'The Wachowski Brothers' as the organisation at the time (which is bad enough to put without explaining this is what it refers to). There is nothing at all wrong with saying "Lana (formerly Larry)" however, even this gets altered back to just "Larry". So I'm not sure why the page remains inaccurate. If you wouldn't go up to Lana and say 'Larry wrote The Matrix', don't put it on the page. Yardsmyth7 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Regardless of how it was credited, acting as if "Larry" is her name isn't accurate. If noting for historical reasons the name as-credited in the film is desired, that can be accomplished by "(formally Larry)" or "(credited as Larry)", rather than pretending they are two different people.
 * Even if you treat it as a normal name change, we generally refer to people by their real name, most popular name, or preferred name. "Lana" is the first and the last, and if not already will soon also be the middle. L Faraone  03:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Guideline says people should be mentioned by their credited name. --uKER (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Religious borrowings and "Matrixism"
The Matrix series borrows symbols heavily from Gnosticism. This is not WP:OR but could prob be sourced directly from the Wachowski brothers, interviews and similar. Thomas Anderson ~ Son of Man, a ship named Gnosis, etc. have been mentioned before. The mentioned Matrixism is nothing like Gnosticism, rather it is someone's deeply ignorant prejudiced projection of their own drug kidnapped mind delusions, the section describing Matrixism is unduly extensive and should be pruned. I'm not sure that a world view constructed on what the Matrix films really exhibit, could actually be considered a form of Gnosticism, but the symbol borrowings are far more important than a malconceived "religion" that realistically should be dead by now. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Matrixism section has now been severely pruned. It was mostly unsourced. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good, very good! I've surfed a little, but not yet found a source from the Wachowski brothers, but instead two youtube videos of Stephan Hoeller, the Ecclesia Gnostica archbishop (or former such) and gnosticism expert. Sources and . He claims the parallels:
 * Trinity
 * Neo's death and Christlike resurrection
 * Apoc(alyps) Neo's given name of mr Anderson
 * Anders son <- Andreas <- son of Anthropos <- Son of man
 * ship Nebuchadnezzar <- weird dreams that must be interpreted (book of Daniel)
 * Zion <- transcendental jerusalem
 * Neo is the one prophecied,
 * he has come (at least) a second time (the second coming),
 * mark of the make of the ship Nebuchadnezzar: "Mark 3:11" from the Gospel of Mark
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New Films
The new films section has been added by someone who, although they accurately cited an article that does indeed report new films, the article itself admits to this information being not much more than hear-say. Also, I would argue that the site itself is not noteworthy enough to ascribe weight to this article. Additionally, this is the only article I can find with any mention of new Matrix films and it is several months old with no updated news or thoughts.

Therefore, I feel that this New Films section should be removed as there is not yet enough confirmed information to warrant it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.155.79 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The source seemed to be reporting rumors in hopes of having an exclusive. I've yanked it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Trailers
I think the (regular and teaser) trailers for The Matrix and The Matrix: Reloaded were notably well-received,  but since the films are >10 years old it may be difficult to find additional reliable sources. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Characters?
Someone PLEASE, add Characters and Voice actors to the Article — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of soft science fiction category
I categorized the matrix franchise as soft science fiction but I think it was by accident. Is this accurate? Could the matrix be considered a cross between hard and soft science fiction like other science fiction franchises?--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it could be considered a cross between hard and soft science fiction. But maybe it also defies the general terminology of "hard" vs. "soft" science fiction (e.g. because the technology in it is too speculative for proper evaluation of its scientific accuracy and technical detail). Either way I do think that the Category:Soft science fiction is inappropriate here as it should be reserved for those works that are purely soft science fiction and/or have been called "soft science fiction" by reliable source. --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Few are pure "soft science fiction", and that designation should not be added to articles without consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Matrix (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ubishops.ca/BaudrillardStudies/vol2_2/rovira.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Link checked. Huggums537 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Matrix (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmovie.com/work/the-matrix-revolutions-282917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC) The citation link was "rescued". However, it seemed to have had conflicting information with another existing cite: []. The formerly conflicting InternetArchivebot citation has since been removed from the article. Huggums537 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions for cleaner table design. Suggestion
I designed a cleaner (not so "blockish-looking") table of the "Cast" section in my sandbox. Here is the diff with the last correction I made to my design. However, USER:Lordtobi immediately reverted it before anyone else had a chance to see it and give their opinion on it. I've opened up this talk section for other users to view my design and give their opinion on which they think is the better looking one. Thanks for your participation! Huggums537 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying "immediately reverted" would be rather exaggerated, but anyway, I don't have anything against the change personally, though I saw that it was probably put there for a reason, so yes, reaching for consensus would be the good option on this, but ultimately, I think adhering a general global consensus (beyond The Matrix, for all series pages) on table style should be reached with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Attaining global consensus on cast listings "beyond all The Matrix series pages" is a bit far reaching. Especially since the individual film articles for the franchise don't even use the same format for cast listings as the franchise page. Tables, bullets, and even info boxes are being used for cast lists. So, there doesn't seem to be any "global consensus" outside of what the majority prefers, which doesn't seem to be tables anyway. It might be more appropriate to just get a consensus for the style of this table by getting a few opinions rather than trying to establish a global consensus for cast lists. However, I will take your advice and refer the discussion to the Films WikiProject. Huggums537 (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone seems to be in favor of keeping the gray design. However, there does seem to be some personal differences as to the shade of gray used. Nobody was in favor of my design/s, but I was given some encouragement for seeking ways to refine the looks things. I consider the matter closed. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Matrix (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628091125/http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/002657.html to http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/002657.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/cmp/rl_game_index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/cmp/m1_screensaver_index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)