3 ms·

It was stupid to make humans be energy sources (because they're not) rather than being a distributed computer as originally envisioned.

• gigatexal 10y ago
  However inefficient put enough people in a room and it clearly heats up. It worked for me in the movie. I'm of the opinion that this shouldn't be a reboot but rather the matrix 4 with Keanu and the Wachowskis. Oh well. Even though the second and third movies weren't as good as the first one I love the trilogy and still rewatch it to this day.
  • wahern 10y ago
    But the "hive mind" aspect of the original concept works on so many layers. Not only does it bind together many aspects of the film (especially the out-of-body experiences Neo and Agent Smith), but connects it to the conceptual genesis in the Simulacra and Simulation treatise, as well as to concepts like Richard Dawkins' Memetics. The Matrix is infinitely more interesting conceptually and thematically from the network-of-minds angle.
    • analognoise 10y ago
      My favorite bit of trivia was about 'residual self image'. Originally the character "Switch" was to be a man in one reality and a woman in the other - it is the digital projection of your mental self, after all. This idea was discarded (I don't remember why), and it's interesting that the Wachowski brothers became the Wachowski sisters. It would have been so much more philosophically interesting if that part had been left in.
      • maxerickson 10y ago
        I expect it is because it would take too much time to make it clear for the audience that it is the same character and as far as the cinematic impact it isn't real different than giving them different hair and clothes in the Matrix. (I'm not arguing about it being an interesting thing to put in the story, just speculating that they didn't think it added enough to the movie)
  • solipsism 10y ago
    However inefficient put enough people in a room and it clearly heats up The "however inefficient" part hints that you might understand why it makes no sense. But it worked for you? It's not just inefficient. It's negative efficient. You have to add more energy to a human than you can possibly get out of that human.
    • PhantomGremlin 10y ago
      It's negative efficient. I'm going out on a limb but ... I think that perhaps the Wachowskis, even though they attended a high school "known for its performing arts and science curriculum", did a lot of daydreaming during their science courses.
      • pstuart 10y ago
        I believe the change was requested by the producers.
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          That's what I've seen reported, and it's consistent with the fact that back story narration aside, the actual depictions throughout the series are more consistent with the reported original intent, that humans are processing nodes, not power sources.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    > However inefficient put enough people in a room and it clearly heats up. It's a whole lot of unnecessary overhead compared to burning the fuel you are feeding the humans to generate energy.
• LarryPage 10y ago
  We should harness keystrokes for energy.
• dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It was stupid to make humans be energy sources (because they're not) rather than being a distributed computer as originally envisioned. But, aside from description from an unreliable sources spouting what is explicitly revealed to be misleading-on-key-points religious dogma created as part of a system of control by the machines, there's no indication in the film that humans are sources of power in the film, and every indication that they are networked processing units (and even that agents, while they can be hosted in different humans over time, are hosted at specifically a 1:1 ratio on humans; or 1 instance per human once Smith is able to create multiple instances.) Now, admittedly, in fact the description given was altered to please execs or test audiences (I forget which), but it actually works quite well in context.