4 ms·

I can't see how anyone ever thought that the entire Matrix trilogy was originally conceived as one unified whole. The jarring transition in the narrative from M

I can't see how anyone ever thought that the entire Matrix trilogy was originally conceived as one unified whole. The jarring transition in the narrative from Matrix 1 to Matrix 2/3 is so pronounced that it just feels like two nearly completely separate stories that were grafted together in some Frankenstein-esque fashion. It's almost like the jump between the Old Testament and the New Testament - two entirely different religions that someone tried to retroactively glue together so they would look like one "thing" with a common linear narrative.

beaned 5y ago
Can you give some examples? I only watched all 3 way back when and was much younger, but the main parts of the plot seemed coherent to me at the time.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  I mean... the entire focus of the narrative completely changed. Matrix 1 was all about "destroy the Matrix and free humanity" while Matrix 2/3 was all about "save Zion from the IRL machine invasion". And I'm not saying it isn't coherent in that one can't follow from the other, or that you can't find a way to make a linear narrative out of that. I'm just saying it's a very pronounced change in focus/tone/direction, whatever you want to call it. And to me, from the very first time I saw Matrix 2, I had this strong sense of "wow, that came out of nowhere and went off on a weird direction". It felt very disjointed and weird to me all along.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    I still don't get what surprised you there since Zion is mentioned in the first movie while he doesn't either destroy the Matrix nor frees humanity there. So it must have happen in some way elsewhere and it does in 2 and 3. I found it quite logical that he would visit Zion, that the machines would attack Zion and that he would continue to try to destroy the Matrix and free humanity. The whole movie 2 and 3 actually show the way he goes to accomplish (or not accomplish) that while the prologue in 1 only introduces him as the protagonist who would go the way.
    - mindcrime 5y ago
      Sure, Zion was mentioned in the first movie. As a side-bar, almost a throwaway thing. But the meat of the story is about the drive to free all of humanity from the Marix. In Matrix 2/3 that element entirely disappears and the "resolution" is some sort of truce between the humans and the machines... that doesn't jibe at all with the "destroy the Matrix" idea, IMO. Anyway... not trying to change anyone's mind here. This is obviously pretty subjective. All I can say is that to me, it's very clear that Matrix 2/3 represent a substantially different (albeit related) story than Matrix 1. If anyone disagrees, well, so be it.
      - Krasnol 5y ago
        > Sure, Zion was mentioned in the first movie. As a side-bar, almost a throwaway thing. A throwaway thing? What? This is where humanity lives outside the Matrix. This is the dialogue: NEO Zion? TANK If this war ended tomorrow, Zion is where the party would be. NEO It's a city? TANK The last human city. The only place we got left. NEO Where is it? TANK Deep underground. Near the earth's core, where it's still warm. You live long enough, you might even see it. Further on Zion is mentioned in connection with the warning and later in the even more important topic of the access codes and coming from Tanks mouth: TANK We can't let that happen, Trinity. Zion is more important than me. Or you, or even Morpheus Or Agent Smiths: AGENT SMITH Once Zion is destroyed, there is no need for me to be here. Do you understand? I need the codes. I have to get inside Zion. You have to tell me how. I mean seriously. I have the feeling you did not pay attention which is the feeling I get from most of the people who are an the hate train. It seems like those people live off the hype for the fight scenes and visual impact of the first movie which none of the others could deliver because the revolution has happened already. But all movies after Matrix had that problem too and it doesn't say anything about the progression of the story of Matrix. > But the meat of the story is about the drive to free all of humanity from the Marix. In Matrix 2/3 that element entirely disappears and the "resolution" is some sort of truce between the humans and the machines... that doesn't jibe at all with the "destroy the Matrix" idea, IMO. It doesn't disappear. It is the main part of the story of those movies. The decisions need to do are just about that. This is what is important and the result is a consequence of what happened along the way. You should really consider watching those movies again because I think you've missed a lot there.
fatnoah 5y ago
This is exactly how I felt as well. The most surprising part of that article was that many people think it was originally envisioned as a trilogy. To me, it feels exactly like one movie that was extraordinarily successful, so they grafted on some stuff to make it a trilogy.
bigodbiel 5y ago
iirc the Wachowski’s plan was for a trilogy from the start but WB didn’t want to fork that much on newcomers and new ip. But once realizing the success and cult following they gave cart blanche for the rest. That explains why the first movie was much more contained, as it could at least stand alone.
ffhhj 5y ago
As I see it we have The Matrix, Animatrix, then a long sequel split in two, and now a conmemorative sequel with pets and zombies. It feels like a wink to Disney. I'd have peferred them to explain how Neo was able to use the "force" against the machines, see their energy while blind, and who's the Zero. Expected a replica of Neo to be used by the machines or something in the lines of "don't be evil" becomes evil, as a critique to modern tech.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  There used to be a theory that the real world is just a upper layer of matrix used by machines to catch anomaly/neo and reset guide/deceive him via an illusion of choice to fight smith and reset the system. That would explain the powers he gets in real world.
marssaxman 5y ago
The tale I was told, by a friend who used to work in the film industry, was that the Wachowskis did in fact write a Matrix trilogy as a unified whole, but the studio felt that a three-movie commitment was too risky and told them to settle for one. The trilogy was therefore abridged and filmed as "The Matrix". After that movie's runaway success, the studio naturally changed their mind and came around asking for parts 2 and 3... which were promptly cobbled together as a single monster sequel over the course of a two-week writing marathon. I have no way to tell how large a kernel of truth this story may contain, but it certainly feels like it could be true.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  I have no way to tell how large a kernel of truth this story may contain, but it certainly feels like it could be true. OK, I could see that. It would explain why there was such a shift between Matrix 1 and Matrix 2/3.

beaned 5y ago

Can you give some examples? I only watched all 3 way back when and was much younger, but the main parts of the plot seemed coherent to me at the time.

mindcrime 5y ago
I mean... the entire focus of the narrative completely changed. Matrix 1 was all about "destroy the Matrix and free humanity" while Matrix 2/3 was all about "save Zion from the IRL machine invasion". And I'm not saying it isn't coherent in that one can't follow from the other, or that you can't find a way to make a linear narrative out of that. I'm just saying it's a very pronounced change in focus/tone/direction, whatever you want to call it. And to me, from the very first time I saw Matrix 2, I had this strong sense of "wow, that came out of nowhere and went off on a weird direction". It felt very disjointed and weird to me all along.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  I still don't get what surprised you there since Zion is mentioned in the first movie while he doesn't either destroy the Matrix nor frees humanity there. So it must have happen in some way elsewhere and it does in 2 and 3. I found it quite logical that he would visit Zion, that the machines would attack Zion and that he would continue to try to destroy the Matrix and free humanity. The whole movie 2 and 3 actually show the way he goes to accomplish (or not accomplish) that while the prologue in 1 only introduces him as the protagonist who would go the way.
  - mindcrime 5y ago
    Sure, Zion was mentioned in the first movie. As a side-bar, almost a throwaway thing. But the meat of the story is about the drive to free all of humanity from the Marix. In Matrix 2/3 that element entirely disappears and the "resolution" is some sort of truce between the humans and the machines... that doesn't jibe at all with the "destroy the Matrix" idea, IMO. Anyway... not trying to change anyone's mind here. This is obviously pretty subjective. All I can say is that to me, it's very clear that Matrix 2/3 represent a substantially different (albeit related) story than Matrix 1. If anyone disagrees, well, so be it.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      > Sure, Zion was mentioned in the first movie. As a side-bar, almost a throwaway thing. A throwaway thing? What? This is where humanity lives outside the Matrix. This is the dialogue: NEO Zion? TANK If this war ended tomorrow, Zion is where the party would be. NEO It's a city? TANK The last human city. The only place we got left. NEO Where is it? TANK Deep underground. Near the earth's core, where it's still warm. You live long enough, you might even see it. Further on Zion is mentioned in connection with the warning and later in the even more important topic of the access codes and coming from Tanks mouth: TANK We can't let that happen, Trinity. Zion is more important than me. Or you, or even Morpheus Or Agent Smiths: AGENT SMITH Once Zion is destroyed, there is no need for me to be here. Do you understand? I need the codes. I have to get inside Zion. You have to tell me how. I mean seriously. I have the feeling you did not pay attention which is the feeling I get from most of the people who are an the hate train. It seems like those people live off the hype for the fight scenes and visual impact of the first movie which none of the others could deliver because the revolution has happened already. But all movies after Matrix had that problem too and it doesn't say anything about the progression of the story of Matrix. > But the meat of the story is about the drive to free all of humanity from the Marix. In Matrix 2/3 that element entirely disappears and the "resolution" is some sort of truce between the humans and the machines... that doesn't jibe at all with the "destroy the Matrix" idea, IMO. It doesn't disappear. It is the main part of the story of those movies. The decisions need to do are just about that. This is what is important and the result is a consequence of what happened along the way. You should really consider watching those movies again because I think you've missed a lot there.

fatnoah 5y ago

This is exactly how I felt as well. The most surprising part of that article was that many people think it was originally envisioned as a trilogy. To me, it feels exactly like one movie that was extraordinarily successful, so they grafted on some stuff to make it a trilogy.

bigodbiel 5y ago

iirc the Wachowski’s plan was for a trilogy from the start but WB didn’t want to fork that much on newcomers and new ip. But once realizing the success and cult following they gave cart blanche for the rest. That explains why the first movie was much more contained, as it could at least stand alone.

ffhhj 5y ago

As I see it we have The Matrix, Animatrix, then a long sequel split in two, and now a conmemorative sequel with pets and zombies. It feels like a wink to Disney. I'd have peferred them to explain how Neo was able to use the "force" against the machines, see their energy while blind, and who's the Zero. Expected a replica of Neo to be used by the machines or something in the lines of "don't be evil" becomes evil, as a critique to modern tech.

me_me_me 5y ago
There used to be a theory that the real world is just a upper layer of matrix used by machines to catch anomaly/neo and reset guide/deceive him via an illusion of choice to fight smith and reset the system. That would explain the powers he gets in real world.

marssaxman 5y ago

The tale I was told, by a friend who used to work in the film industry, was that the Wachowskis did in fact write a Matrix trilogy as a unified whole, but the studio felt that a three-movie commitment was too risky and told them to settle for one. The trilogy was therefore abridged and filmed as "The Matrix". After that movie's runaway success, the studio naturally changed their mind and came around asking for parts 2 and 3... which were promptly cobbled together as a single monster sequel over the course of a two-week writing marathon. I have no way to tell how large a kernel of truth this story may contain, but it certainly feels like it could be true.

mindcrime 5y ago
I have no way to tell how large a kernel of truth this story may contain, but it certainly feels like it could be true. OK, I could see that. It would explain why there was such a shift between Matrix 1 and Matrix 2/3.