Talk:The Matrix Revolutions/Archive 1

Recent Change
I'm sorry, I couldn't stand it. I excised something out of this article. It was a single sentence from a couple of paragraphs into the article. It was the following:

The films are respected by many as cinematic works that are as significant as works of science fiction by renowned cinematic artisans like Stanley Kubrick.

I took it out for three basic reasons.

1. It's not a very good sentence; it uses "cinematic" and "works" twice in only 25 words.

2. It is not cited. I was thinking I should leave part of it in, like: The films are respected by many as cinematic works that are as significant as works of science fiction by renowned cinematic artisans. But then that statement couldn't be cited an verified, at least not by me, 'cause I'm not going to waste my time verifying a lame statement for a an even more lame movie (I know, I just repeated myself. DAMN!).

3. It's blatantly false. Stanley Kubrick DIED March 7th, 1999. The first film, The Matrix, didn't even OPEN until March 31st, 1999. Now, given, maybe he got an advanced copy, and maybe moments before his death he watched the movie, and maybe someone, a friend of the family, over heard his comment that he "fucking loved it," and was so moved by his being moved by the movie that he/she recanted this tail to some accredited news agency. Me, I can't find reference of it anywhere. And, even if he did see the movie and did say he loved it, the sentence is still blatantly false. In the article it cites his name as being one who thought the FILMS were "significant cinematic works (by citng his name in this manner, it at least implies he saw all the films)." Unless he made such comments from the afterlife, there's no way this is possible. The sequals were released the 7th of May, 2003 and October 27th, 2003, respectively.

--Joe Volcano 10:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread the sentence. The person who wrote it is saying that many people respect these movies as much as they respect movies by Kubrick, not that Kubrick himself appreciated them.  Admittedly the first two reasons given should be more then adequate for removal.

even if that is so, the sentence is then grammatically weak and that doesn't change the fact that the sentence should still have been excised because it was UNCITED.

--64.142.79.210 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"Despite poor reviews and a weaker opening than its predecessor, The Matrix Revolutions broke box-office records for its opening weekend..." -- Isn't that kind of self-contradictory? -- Maybe the opening can be read as the start of the film and the first weekend showing... how would you clarify?

-- Weaker opening may be reffering to the opening scenes of the movie, although I fail to see how that relates to how much money it made in it's opening weekend.

it depends on what type of box office records, it did worse at the box office than matrix 1, but still beat other movies of that year(?)week(?)

This thing needs a serious rewrite
So far, the article's just a lengthy plot description and a bit of info on revenues. Surely there's more interesting stuff to write about surrounding the film? The plot segment's a bit too unwieldy at the moment IMO. Sockatume, Talk 19:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've spent some effort here and there to revise portions of it, as well as portions of Reloaded's plot/spoiler section. Mainly if something comes across as confusing or an overt conjecture (something I don't think belongs in the same section as a spoiler, it deserves its own talk section or something) I rewrote it.Bombfish 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

News story link
"Oh come on, it's a cute and factual link to a news item directly related to the film and is referenced in a related article. I'm sorry if you don't think it's politically correct."

It's actually indirectly related to the film--it's *directly* related to a rally by Russian communists. It's not a matter of political correctness for me, it's a matter of it being a poor link to include here because it has little to do with the film itself. Required reading: External links and m:When should I link externally (answer: Not very often.).

And it matters very little to the movie itself or to anyone who wants to learn more information about it whether or not Russian communists held a rally at its premiere in Russia.

If it's referenced "in a related article", than, if appropriate, put the external link *there*.

&mdash; Phil Welch 22:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this just an advert for "ananova.com"? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ananova is the web service of the British Press Association. A link to an Ananova article is no more an ad for Ananova than a link to a CNN article is an advert for CNN. AndyL 23:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"And it matters very little to the movie itself or to anyone who wants to learn more information about it "

Nonsense, it offers an interpretation of the movie and is thus of interest to anyone wanting information of the movie except to those who wish to deny that a Marxist interpretation of the films exist. You've made it clear elsewhere that you dislike this interpretation and I suspect this POV is playing itself out here. AndyL 23:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never made it clear I dislike the interpretation. Look, I'll tell you what. If you want to go to Matrix trilogy and write something about the Marxist interpretation there, including whatever external links you find appropriate, that's cool. That's a good use of external links--as a reference for material in the article itself. Unfortunately, the external link in question is not serving that purpose now. &mdash; Phil Welch 23:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Writing a paragraph in The Matrix Revolutions on how the film was received around the world would serve the same purpose. AndyL 23:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If it was extensive enough to include every small demonstration and rally at every major city where it premeired, maybe. I still think the link and the relevant information are FAR more notable within the greater context of Marxist interpretations of the Matrix trilogy. Come on, what do you have against this solution? &mdash; Phil Welch 23:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

What, you don't want to write about the Marxist interpretation of the Matrix trilogy? I'd have thought that would be the ideal solution, because you get all the Marxist-related external links you want and Wikipedia gets actual content related to the issue. I'm not your enemy here, I'm trying to help Wikipedia, and I'm suggesting a third way out of this impasse to Wikipedia's benefit. &mdash; Phil Welch 23:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been avoiding the main movie pages like the plague after watching the hubbub on interpretations. I decided to dive in, if nothing other than to relieve the page of several annoying run-on sentences, awkward phrases, and just-plain-wrong summarization. While the Smith deletion matter is clear enough to me, it's not page to put my opinion. However I did note points from the movie that seemed to debate the other speculations where applicable. The MxO game is canonical in terms of events that are formed from the game hosts and, in turn, the Wachowskis. While hopefully this doesn't open up the idea that any player can claim to have effected a game event and make themselves a significant canon element ("Look! Teh roxxor! I p00ped in a corner by Neo's phone booth!), it should help in resolving a few questions that needed a more definitive answer, such as the demise of the main characters. Spencerian 5 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)

POV concerns
The whole article seems POV, like a fanboy's dream review. Scholars and philosophers are tossed around like MANY people make these claims but it references ONE person? Come on, it truly is an apologist article for a movie that very much did not live up to it's expectations. Slammed critically and with a lackluster followup in theaters and DVD.12.17.203.65 02:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, this whole article feels very biased. I know at one point a NPOV warning appeared at the begining of the article, shouldn't it be put back? BambinoPrime 04:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation & analysis
I have removed the interpretation and analysis section as it was original research. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Reception
I removed the following block of text: "Other pieces cult science fiction cinema considered contemporary critical failures include 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner. The aforementioned films are today considered by many as being bechmarks in science fiction cinema, suggesting the Matrix sequels may recieve a warmer reception in the long term."

Just because the critical reaction to some cult SF films has changed their is no reson to suppose that this will be the case with this particular film. Besides, '''2001 and Blade runner were a long way from being "contemporary critical failures". Both films were widely praised and highly influential on their initial release'''.


 * I assure you that you are mistaken.


 * When Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey premiered in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 1968, most film critics found the film slow-moving, dull, and completely bereft of a discernible plot. Renata Adler in The New York Times said that “the movie is so completely absorbed in its own problems...that it is somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring.” Judith Crist, writing in New York, suggested that “2001” be “cut in half” in order to “preclude our wondering why exactly Kubrick has brought us to outer space.”  Variety remarked the film was “big, beautiful, but plodding and confusing.”  Even science fiction author Lester del Rey stated the film was a “disaster” and likely to “set major science fiction moviemaking back another ten years.”


 * Jane Maslin in The New York Times wrote that Blade Runner was a “muddled . . . gruesome . . . mess.” People magazine called it “a slothful movie, dim both literally and figuratively . . . Better you should go down to your local foreign car garage and watch them repair a Porsche, if want to see something really exotic.”  Shiela Benson referred to the film as “blade crawler” in the LA Times, and Pat Berman in a Southern review called it “SF pornography.”  Roger Ebert gave it a thumbs down, explaining “the movie’s weakness is that it allows the special effects technology to overwhelm its story.”


 * Also, Blade Runner made back only half of its production budget in ticket sales (its budget was $28 million and its gross was an appalling $17 million).


 * I'm merely mentioning that both 2001 and Blade Runner were - like The Matrix Revolutions - critical failures. Seeing as the original Matrix is widely considered to be one of the single most influencial films of the 20th century, I don't think it's unfair to mention this.  The series is highly important on the science fiction cinema scene, just like 2001 and Blade Runner.


 * As a result, I'm going to reinstate the comment (minus the last section about the "warmer reception") for now, but feel free to discuss it further. --Max314 21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Split suggestion
As this is a long article and the interpretation section can be considered tangential (and it's long enough to be its own article), I suggest it be split out. H e r P e g s h i p  15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm
Messianic figure is blinded but can still see with mental powers? Dune Messiah anyone? Also, philosophical section is low quality and indeed fanboyish.


 * yeah, there was a strong feeling, critically-wise, that the movie's philosophical zen-like teachings were nothing but shallow new-age philosophical mumbo jumbo that was indeed boring on the sequels as it never really went anywhere and just pointed out the obvious. Never the less, it takes a real fan-boy to oversee all of this to give a rather larger meaning. Its sad to think that most of us have such a poor knoledge in philosophy, that even an outdated philosophy like the one of Plato looked brand as new on the screen. It has happened before, though, as in Fight Club some of Nietzsche's teachings were also barely grasped, yet it was seen as a rather "deep" movie by most, when all in all it was just a fun movie with a rather unoriginal and vague philosophical meaning. However, one has to give it to these movies for sparking an interest in philosophy, but at the same time we should not place them in an altar since no one is a better person after watching them.

Sloka and meaning included
The Sanskrit sloka which is used in the credits part is mentioned along with the translation and can be verified by Googling and also the possible interpretations with respect to Neo are included. Thanks Sudharsansn 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDB rating removed
as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive4#Infobox_IMDb_rating Z3u2 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation section
This entire section appears to be original research. ---Jackel 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Their only references were links to some forums. I scrubbed it. In the event that someone finds a notable analysis, they can add it in. Sockatume 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot
Under the plot section, I have trouble reading this statement: "You guessed it, Neo wins. With a very clever move based on the movie's tagline." Can someone perhaps modify it? --ToKnow 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

oracle's batch of cookies.
Hi there. I removed this line:
 * As he enters, the Oracle expresses that she had hoped that the batch of cookies that she was baking had been finished before Neo arrived, perhaps a hint that with her metamorphosis she can no longer predict the future as easily.

My comment for removing this is: perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Highly unencyclopedic. VdSV9• ♫ 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix revolutions neostationstare 300.gif
Image:Matrix revolutions neostationstare 300.gif 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 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 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix revolutions smithangelofdarkness 300.gif
Image:Matrix revolutions smithangelofdarkness 300.gif 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 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 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix revolutions zionaftermath 300.gif
Image:Matrix revolutions zionaftermath 300.gif 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 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 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Merovingian dynasty note
I removed the following note from the plot description since it is already mentioned at The Merovingian where it belongs.
 * (behind the scenes note: the Merovingian Dynasty is the name of the line of the first royal house of France, and are rumored to have been descendants of Christ)

I don't think it is that important to include in the plot summary. --Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) Still seems pretty generalized to me. 76.66.180.38 (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
People who post on this talk page, and I suspect in some cases on the article itself, seem to be unfamilar with what Wikipedia is. It is not a venue for original research, which is to say there should be no information in it which does not appear first in another reputable source. mg e kelly 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Those enforcing this policy should not be overzealous. Yes, people might rant on endlessly if nothing is done to rein it in - but the fact remains that ordinary people watching an ordinary film can agree on a wide variety of intricate details, and should feel free to include them.
 * The policy on the talk page should be much looser still, because talk pages are meant for people to ask questions and sniff out new directions for an article to go. Often a question could have a solid sourced answer from a contributor who just never thought about it while editing himself - and those who censor that interaction become very annoying.  You'd (hopefully) never do that in a science article - if someone asks whether virtual particles are quantized, you accept he's asking a question that ought to be cleared up by someone who knows the subject, not proposing a new theory of physics.  The same should be true of film interpretation.  Sometimes, like the judge addressing a lawyer in a courtroom scene, you should tell people to "put a question mark on the end of it", but that should be enough. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)