# Talk:The Matrix/Archive 2

Posted by
Mudslinging among folks online is nothing new …
Mudlsinging to this degree on Wiki – Sorry – This – Page – Does – Not – Not – Exist is a rare find !
WOULD YOU LIKE THE MUD SERVED ON A WHITE BACKGROUND OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO SWTICH TO THE RAINBOW FLASHING BACKGROUND MODE WHICH DOESN’T EXIST YET ….
The page Sophia Stewart STILL DOES NOT EXIST …

## Sophia Stewart

People who have not even read the story by Sophia Stewart (The Third Eye) are claiming that it was not plagiarized by the Wachowski’s based solely on what they are told by others (this is what wrong people say to make themselves look right). They are preserving the status quo and ignoring the success her trial had before her incompetent (and probably corrupt) lawyers mucked up her case (she mucked up her own case by not showing up). If they have not and will not read the plagiarized story they should excuse themselves from editing this page — Unlike the judge in her case who did not recuse himself despite the fact that the Wachowski’s hired his son. the courts have made bigger mistakes and displayed more corruptions so I don’t think they should override anyone’s personal firsthand knowledge of the case. In will let this edit go for the time being to preserve my own reputation from being slandered more officially by the wiki police — but this is something that deserves more attention. Popular opinion and the opinion of the courts should not override the facts — Sophia Stewart’s copyrighted story “The Third Eye” was blatantly plagiarized by the Wachowski’s who seemed also to “borrow” (according to this page as it has stood for some time) from a lot of others for their production of the Matrix.

The article summarises the confirmed facts as they stand, and in an encyclopedia, that’s all that matters. Asking people not to edit the article until they’ve developed a POV goes against the idea of neutrality. As an aside, I notice you mention “to preserve my own reputation from being slandered more officially by the wiki police” – does that mean you’re Sophia Stewart? If so, you realise that’s pretty much preclude allowing you to edit the article, right? Sockatume 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You continue to state the plagiarism is a “fact”. To this I respond, “prove it”. And I mean proof beyond any doubt. You cannot just state something is a fact and then expect that to be sufficient (and I have already read excerpts of “The Third Eye” so, no, not everyone who reads it agrees; I actually found it to be total garbage that has nothing at all to do with The Matrix). You have to find reliable sources with information that you can cite to prove your claims. So far the only information available anywhere is that she claims they plagiarized but her case was dismissed. These are the facts, that is all that can be said here because this is an encyclopedia not a forum for you to rant about your personal opinion. Konman72 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is why I believe you are disingenuous… You claim to have read excerpts from “The Third Eye” (which I believe) but I also know that the VAST majority of excerpts made available are there expressly to highlight and illustrate the plagiarism. And these excerpts only suggest the tip of the iceberg in this story about the messianic character known as “The One” and the last human refuge far from the control of computer rule. From the handing over of the pill to the blinding of “the One,” the examples of blatant plagiarism abound. And make no mistake — these story points (and a great many others) were copyrighted and submitted to the Wachowski’s long before the Matrix films came out. And again you rely on the courts opinion (as if they have never been wrong) and public opinion (which sides with the famous directors of one of their favorite movies) as if belief makes something so. We’re talking about verbatim quotes from the story used in the movies. It could hardly be more plagiarized but, since she got screwed over in a court of a law, justice doesn’t matter. The facts which you want to be concerned with should have nothing to do with the courts injustice but RATHER should be these: The same plot, the same characters (including the messianic “the One”) who save humanity from the oppression of computers, the same setting, and direct quotes from the copyrighted work which was submitted to the Wachoswski’s years earlier in response to requests for manuscripts.
The article states the facts of the case – who was involved, why, and how it turned out. Your opinions regarding the case are irrelevant. If you don’t have anything to add to the article, you should go and discuss this on a more relevant forum. Sockatume 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The article does NOT state all the pertinent facts of the case — only the unjust results. It does not point out, for example, that the judges son was the defense attorney for the Wachowski’s. This is a pertinent fact (is it not?!) — as are the simple and plain instances of direct and obvious plagiarism. Short of transcribing the entire story or pointing out ALL the facts of the case, I think your statement should read that the article states SOME of the facts of the case. In any case… at least Sophia Stewart can have a moral victory if not justice. But fanboys rule I guess when it comes to upholding commonly accepted falsehood.
If you want to whine about the american legal system, do it somewhere else. We’ve got all the verifiable facts relating to the case here already. —InShaneee 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I’m not “whining” about anything. But the “verifiable facts” are NOT here already. The plain act of plagiarism is verifiable but you seem not to want to do so — but edit this topic nevertheless. How do you think plagiarism is determined anyway (by those who refuse to read the plagiarized story like yourself)? In any case it needn’t be by a court of law which, very simply, can make mistakes or be corrupt.
So can individuals like yourself, hence why we default to independent, respected institutions like the courts. Unless you’ve got independently verifiable information that this is plagiarism, move on and stop wasting everyone’s time. —InShaneee 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point of verifiable. The fact that she sued and lost is verifiable, whether or not it is plagiarism is not. That is a matter of opinion. It is not up to us to convince anyone either way which is why we do not discuss it any further than the verifiable facts of the case. Also the fact that the judge was the attorney’s father is not important. Judges are impartial and this type of thing happens all of the time. For us to state it would be a violation of our neutral point of view policy. Unless you can find a citable reliable source that states that this part of the case affected the outcome then it is irrelevant to this page. Seriously, this whole thing is over. It will never be included because it is not needed and the information that you want in is a clear violation of policy. Please just let it go. Maybe, if something new comes out in the future then you can return and add whatever you want, but until then we have all of the relevent information. You continue to say that justice is being denied, yet Wikipedia is not a forum for justice. This is a place to present information, please keep that in mind. (Oh and please sign your edits here with ~~~~) Konman72 19:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note from an offhand observer: Your claims of plagiarism seem to be to a first-hand account/original research claim and as such are not allowed on WP. 155.212.30.130 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

## Brandon Lee?

In the trivia section, it is mentioned that the script was written with Brandon Lee in mind for the lead role. Does anyone have anything that verifies this? It doesn’t make sense to me because Lee was killed in 1993 and the earliest draft of the Matrix screenplay I’ve seen was written in 1996. IceKeyHunter 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

## the ripple effect

I have a question about the nature of ripples in the Matrix trilogy. They appear in multiple instances of the trilogy, off the top of my head I can recall the helicopter explosion in the first film, whenever Neo takes flight in the second film, the building explosion in the seond film [after the architect scene], and in the third film, when Neo pushes off the wall during the final fight with Smith. There’s probably more instances elsewhere– like the mirror in the first film, and when we pull into the television screen during the interrogation scene. Do these ripples have any significant meaning, or are they strictly visual? Off the top of my head, I can think of Confusious(?) saying that we should float down the river of life, and I can recall Bruce Lee describing his fighting style as moving like water “You must move like liquid. When you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup. Water adapts” [or something like that]. Am I looking too deep into things? Also, do you think maybe we should have a Matrix Philosophy page? We can probably move a lot of info from the trivia sections into a philosophical page. A R Blackwood 09:27, 03 June 2006
ANSWER: The Ripple effect is an occurence that happens when the programing of the matrix cannot keep up with a certain factor being added to the equation. An example of this would be when the helicopter crashes into the building in the first movie. We see the crash happening in super slow motion. The matrix was calculating the proper result, the proper sum of a helicopter crashing into that building. So essentially the ripple effect is lag. When Neo takes off etc. the matrix does not know how to respond to that kind of anomaly so it also lags. Note that these lags are seen at extreme slow motion, so the normal people of the matrix could not catch them with the naked eye. –Doncroft–69.210.26.15 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My assumption was always that it was by-product of the One’s powers – the lag as you said – but that, in certain instances, it was the One *forcing* the Matrix to “slow down”. After all, the first example, with the helicopter – that’s when you get Tank going “I knew it! He’s the one!” and Morpheous says to Trinity “Do you believe it now?”. The implication is that Neo forced the “ripple effect” and in doing so saved Trinity from the explosion.(195.92.168.163 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
new question, ok, what is the signifigance of the mirror sence in the first movie, is that the very first time neo manifests the power of the One? he sees the broken mirror, then as he is looking at it, it slides together and becomes whole,then touching the mirror and it acting as liquid and trying to take over his body, was it just the power of the one working on a subconc level? or is it a random anomaly? could we say that it is a reprisentation(sp?) of neo himself, he living his life thinking that there is something wrong with the world, and feeling broken about it, then finding proof that there really is something more, i.e. the run in with smith, finding out that said run in was actoualy real, meeting morphious, being told about the matrix, so at first he feels more solid about his life in finding out that he is right, but then he feels very much unreal knowing that everything is about to change and become all encompassing, seen in the liquid state of the mirror, and then the liquid trying to cover his body. so what was it all about in your guys’s opinion?–Manwithbrisk 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

## citations?

“The success of The Matrix, particularly on the DVD format led to two sequels.”

Why on earth does that need a citation? It seems pretty self-evident that if the movie wasn’t successful, sequels would not have been made.

I think it’s the “particularly on the DVD format” bit that needs a citation. It didn’t seem to be “particularly” successful on DV: given how much of a hit it was at the box office, good DVD sales were inevitable. 168.224.1.14 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wachowsky Bros said that they wrote the story as a trilogy, so the first film’s success didn’t lead to the sequences, it led the studio to accept making them.

this statement is in the Matrix: Revisited DVD. They approached the studio with the wanting to film a trilogy, they said “why don’t you film one first.” Also, I recall seeing that The Matrix was the first dvd to sell 3 million copies. A week after the dvd went on sale, 1.8 million copies had sold, and approx 4 million dvd players were sold, close to a 1:2 ratio.[[1]]

At the time The Matrix went out on DVD, this was a relatively new format/technology and the Matrix was particularly successful (in relation with other releases) specially because of the features (namely: extras – bullet-time, interactive “follow the white rabbit” thingy, etc..) VdSV9 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

“The cell phone used through out this film is the Nokia 8110. It is only available outside of the U.S. and its menu is in Russian.”

Does this mean that the phone’s menu is in Russian in the movie? Might be worth phrasing it that way for clarity.

! this is not strictly the case, as the phone is avail in the UK in english Graveenib 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

## Cleanup

I suggest that this article should contain only information concerning the first movie. Most sections, like ‘impact’, ‘philosophy’, ‘science’, as well as many external links, should be moved to the article Matrix trilogy. Compare to Star Wars (article about the saga) and Star Wars: A New Hope (article about the first movie, released as ‘Star Wars’) Pictureuploader 14:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nobody replied so I took the liberty to do so myself. I think it looks much better now and I hope you agree. I will proceed with the external links as well. Pictureuploader 12:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Possibly related, at the end of Colours and Patterns: “In the latter scene, the rain was more significant and played a larger aesthetic role.” It’s not clear if this is referring to the “seeing of the code” (which is being referred to here figuratively as “rain” for some reason, whereas the other example is literal), or the final confrontation of the THIRD movie. If I’ve completely missed something, feel free to ignore me.

## Resolution?

There has been no response to my points above regarding Marxism and the Matrix. Do editors agree that it is now established that a) there is a Marxist analysis of the Matrix and b) that it is notable given reference to it in several newspapers and magazines and its inclusion in a book on the NY Times bestsellers list? Can we therefore have the article unprotected and add a section discussing the Marxist analysis of the Matrix which includes links to the aforementioned articles and a link to the MIM review as an example of the Marxist analysis of the film?

Many editors, particularly those who are fans of the film and who are opposed to Marxism, may not agree with the Marxist analysis – indeed I suspect that many of the editors here are offended by the mere existence of such an analysis and stridently oppose its validity – but all editors should now acknowledge that a) it is factual to state that there is such an analysis and b) that its notability has also been established. The way to deal with this is to include the analysis in a section of the article – if there are any notable writings opposing the Marxist analysis they should also be included. However, to deny that such an analysis even exists by censoring its mention in the article would be an unacceptable violation of NPOV in that it would be the exclusion of notable views because they contradict ones own. AndyL 16:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reckon we should consider an “External Links” subcategory for “Notable philosophical analyses”. Marxism’s a significant enough philosophy for an external link to be justified, and it could include things like the Philosophy section of the Warner Brothers Matrix website. Sockatume 16:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I’m sure the MIM link could have been justified, if the issue had been discussed before the page protection. As it happens, the user in question refused to discuss the issue until page protection had come into effect, which suggests their motives are somewhat disingenuous. I’m aware that Wikipedia is not a link repository, but the movie in question has enough of a philosophical twist to justify a few bits of further reading. Sockatume 16:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which “user in question” is this? There had been active and civil discussion at the user talk pages of myself (User talk:Curps), User talk:TheGrza, User talk:Mista-X long before page protection was put in place. AndyL’s claim otherwise is simply false. Regarding the Talk:The Matrix page, AndyL himself made no attempt to discuss anything there until after he applied page protection. — Curps 01:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Apologies, I wasn’t aware that any inclusion/exclusion debate had been going on beforehand. I was only watching the Matrix Talk page, therefore all I saw occur was a revert scuffle, followed by a protect and then the debate beginning on this talk page. So my point of view whoever kept putting the MIM article back in was doing so with no attempt to discuss the issue. Sockatume 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

My solution: mention the best-selling book, with external link(s) to news articles, and leave out the MIM link (which would pale in comparison to such text). violet/riga (t) 17:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be fine not having the MIM link if the professor’s article or a notable extract were online. As it’s not, I believe the MIM review may be the most notable online example of a Marxist critique of the Matrix. I haven’t searched exhaustively, however, and if someone can find another Marxist review online that may be preferable. The World Socialist Web Site (which has some well written reviews) only mentions the Matrix briefly in one article. There are threads on the Matrix in the LBO-Talk list . There is a review of the Matrix Reloaded in the British magazine Socialism Today The Matrix… Reloaded or overloaded? .AndyL

I will also assume that we have agreed that the refernce to Matrixism is worthy of inclusion as one of the impacts that the ‘The Matrix’ franchise has had.

Actually, we’ve all agreed on the contrary a long time ago. Now please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 04:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It was never agreed upon. The reference to Matrixism as one of the impacts of The Matrix on pop culture is relevant here. Please end your personal “anti-cult” crusade.~Anonymous

Does the last part of this article seemed biased to anyone else?

Both sides of the Matrixism inclusion debates have seemed quite biased to me. On the con side, the most disturbing positions can mostly be considered in two sets: first, the “Matrixism must be judged more strictly than other NRMs because X” group (the most prevelant value of X being variations on “but it’s obviously fake” and working backwards to justify this), and second (rarer, but far more dangerous), “the standards on which we’re judging Matrixism should be applied to all NRMs, and if we succeed here we can eliminate much of this nonsense from Wikipedia” group. My bias: My own faith is an NRM (not Matrixism, and not media-based (much), but still), and I’m worried (with thanks to Martin Niemoller) that this is going to start a trend on Wikipedia that will further marginalize and discriminate against people who face far to much marginalization and discrimination already.
On the pro side — yes, it seems quite obvious that the anonymous linkspammers are Matrixists (possibly (but not provably) one anonymous linkspammer who’s the only Matrixist) who are trying to prostilitize (however subtly) through Wikipedia. Yes, this is a Bad Thing. However, this bias is not shared by everyone who thinks the link belongs in the article, no matter how much effort is put into painting everyone holding this opinion with the same brush. KickAir8P~ 06:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

## Archive

I moved all previous content to an archive page as a way of putting this ridiculous dispute behind us. — Phil Welch 21:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

## “Matrixism” background

A little background on our vandalism problem…

“Matrixism” was the topic of an article some months ago, based apparently upon a single Geocities web page. There is a notable lack of evidence that such a religion even exists, and as a result, Matrixism went to VfD. The result was “redirect to The Matrix“, so the passages about “Matrixism” were added then.

At the time, I edited the passages to conform to NPOV and factuality standards, reflecting the unknown veracity of the claim, while a single anonymous vandal continued to revert and linkspam this article, List of religions, and New religious movement.

In the meantime, an RfC was posted for the “Matrixism” dispute. My compromise position of keeping a less-linkspammed, more accurate and neutral passage was questioned by most involved in the RfC, with almost unanimous consent to removing the reference entirely. I bowed to majority opinion and allowed the consensus to reign. This has not stopped our linkspammer, however, and many Wikipedians are vigilantly reverting his edits.

This matter has been listed at Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages#Specific_anonymous_vandals.

Phil Welch 04:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Having monitored this topic for quite sometime it is evident that Phil Welch is conducting what amounts to a one man campaign to manipulate wikipedia into removing this reference. From the bizarre wording and linkage of some his post he exposed an extreme “anti-cult” bias. He continues his personal crusade and to deny his bias. ~Anonymous
I don’t have an anti-cult bias. I just haven’t seen any evidence Matrixism is notable. And I’m not even reverting you most of the time anymore. — Phil Welch 19:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Phil Welch also claims concensus where there was none. Further he knowingly is ignoring the majority opinion of a wikipedia vote the overwhelming result of which was to keep Matrixism re-directed here. ~Anonymous
Which vote are you referring to? The current RfD listing is about tied. — Phil Welch 19:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one can be told what the vote is… You have to see it for yourself. —68.255.94.233 05:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

### “Matrixism” is Hypocritical

I don’t think that “Matrixism” (they couldn’t come up with a better name?!) is in any way valid, at least not after the trilogy was complete. The idea of the first movie was to set up this dogmatic belief system by viewing the world of The Matrix through the eyes of the Morpheus character. The Matrix Reloaded goes on to destroy the notion of ‘The One’ as a prophetic messiah, and the quest for peace becomes one of heart-ache and human suffering seen in The Matrix Revolutions – not the lean, clean “do as you’re told”, “cause and effect” mentality of the first two films.

If anything, The Matrix Revolutions goes to show that having faith in human nature (i.e. believing in Neo, believing in oneself, believing in those around you) is greater and more powerful than the dogmatic, Morpheus-like belief in some religious anecdote.

Those who want to use the movies as an excuse to believe that we’re in a virtual world totally miss the point of the scenario being a metaphor that presents a platform on which various contemporary and relevant issues can be discussed.

“Matrixism” has no reason to exist, as its mere concept undermines the message of the entire trilogy.

Max314 19:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

“‘Matrixism’ has no reason to exist”. That is quite a load of POV wouldn’t you say? The fact of the matter, wether you like it or not, is that Matrixism does in fact exist. From another POV Matrixism appears quite in line with the whole of The Matrix trilogy.

71.34.108.155 02:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The more POV statements here comes from 71.34.108.155 and lets be honest. Even if it is hypocritical, maybe this is something to include, that the movies have spawned a pseudo religion and can reference the geocities site for Matrixism. But there should be more than just a personal web page for it to have it’s own section. It also should not be added by an anonymous IP who could be promoting his/her own site. I’m not accusing anyone, now, don’t get me wrong. We need to focus on whether this is suitable for Wikipedia and if it meets enough requirements. I suggest that, if anyone can produce reputable sources in addition to just a Geocities page on Matrixism, there be a section for it. Flying Spaghetti Monster has it’s own article, but only because of the controversial debate against teaching intelligent design. Graveenib 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I reccomend recording its existence and verifable information about its existence, include the fact that it may or may not actually exist. Seems like a no-brainer. —Iondream 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

## Literature

The second paragraph of Literature under Influences and interpretations could use a rewrite. It mentions a cinematic influence (The Terminator) when there is a seperate entry for those, refers to ‘…both films being inspired…’ in such a way as to completely confuse the reader what films it is referring to, not to mention again being under literature, and most annoyingly to me, claiming ‘artificial intelligence overthrowing or enslaving mankind’ to be a theme of Frank Herbert‘s Dune, which is not the case. The Butlerian Jihad has been argued to be a religious persecution of intelligent machines, rather than, as his son Brian Herbert has interpreted and written in his books, a war against oppressing machines (or so I’ve heard, I have yet to read them). In any case it is only mentioned briefly and not really a theme of Dune.

I do not intend to rewrite it, partially because I am still new to Wikipedia, partially because I have nothing to replace it, but mostly because I don’t want my head to get bitten off. Fëaluinix 23:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that nobody disagrees, I went ahead and edited it, despite previous rant. Fëaluinix 23:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I finished reading 1984 by George Orwell last night and the first thing I thought of when I finished was, that was The Matrix Trilogy done right. The parrelels between the machines and the inner party and how dialogue from the movie applys so well to the ideologies in the book is pretty astounding. Is this an often cited reference or what cos I cant find it in the entry, it seems like quite a glaringly obvious one.

## Symbols

After watching The Matrix literally ten times (almost in a row – I’d just bought the DVD and I was sick so I had nothing else to do) I noticed a couple of minor themes in the movie that I think are interesting enough to deserve mention, but I’d like input on this before doing so because I’m not sure if that’s just me… These are just the ideas I had, I just wanted to know if other people thought it would be worthwhile for me to make them better and more coherant, and add them to the actual article…
This only refers to the first Matrix movie – I’ve seen the others, but not recently enough to write about them.

Mirrors – there are many, many instances of reflective surfaces in the Matrix, and in all these cases something specific is being reflected. It also fits with the general theme of the movie in that the Matrix is a reflection of the real world. If you look at what mirrors generally represent in other literature, it also adds to the general theme.

Telephones – same is true of telephones… they’re used to dial into the matrix, to contact one another inside the matrix and the operator outside the matrix, and they are the only way of getting out of the matrix. Again, the symbolism of a telephone adds meaning to the rest of the movie in general. Oracleoftruth 23:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There’s a really good bit about reflections in “The Matrix Revisited”. They even managed to slip them into the score. Sockatume 03:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This is really interesting, would deserve to be included. What about sunglasses? (just brainstorming, I don’t mean to be sarcastic) —Eleassar777 11:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! I’ve also noticed how everyone wears sunglasses – actually, they’re mostly mirrored sunglasses, which is where a lot of my ‘mirrors’ idea came from. It seems that generally people think that it’s a good idea (or at least not a bad enough idea to speak up against) so I’ll add this section later on, I need to fix it up so it includes referances and makes sense. Oracleoftruth 03:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
This is original research, so disregard it until you can find an external source on this, but I’ve always considered the sunglasses to be a sort of protection. They’re a filter for perception in the Matrix, protecting them from fully accepting the false world of the Matrix as real. Also, they shield the eyes from view, which is another form of protection. Notice that in the fights, when Morpheus loses his glasses he is vulnerable to Agent Smith, and later Smith and Neo both lose their glasses in their fight. — Phil Welch 20:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I think I bunged in some comments to that effect in the article, dunno if they’re still there though (not very encyclopedic in retrospect). They were protection in a literal sense as well: in some of the supplimentary materials (part of The Art of the Matrix, IIRC) it’s said that the sunglasses were important eye protection for the actors during the lobby shootout. Sockatume 20:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
one shallow point about the telephones which amused me is the referencing that is making to Superman getting changed in phonebooths.
I guess this also counts as original research, since I can’t think of a source that says exactly what I am about to say, but the mirrored sunglasses are surely in homage to 1980s cyberpunk. E.g. Molly in William Gibson’s Neuromancer has mirrored lenses implanted over her eyes; the signature cyberpunk anthology edited by Bruce Sterling was called Mirrorshades; “Mozart in Mirrorshades” was a famous 1980s cyberpunk short story; and there are many other such references to mirrored lenses in the original cyberpunk oeuvre. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Matrix movies are heavily influenced by Gibson and the cyberpunk movement generally. Metamagician3000 12:56, 23 December 2005

## The reference to the brain in the vat

Is this a reference to Dennett’s short story? If not, who is it? The author deserves recognition – as much as Plato and Descartes who are mentioned with their works.

I think it appeared first in Dennett’s “Where Am I?” from Brainstorms – although in the end-notes he comments: “Anyone familiar with the literature on this topic will recognize that my remarks owe a great deal to the explorations of Sydney Shoemaker, John Perry, David Lewis and Derek Parfit, and in particular to their papers in Amelie Rorty, ed., The Identities of Persons, 1976.”
That might be a worthwhile lead to explore… MFNickster 05:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
There’s also a lot of critical and philosophical material around comparing the choices by Neo and Cypher to the choice whether or not to plug into the Experience Machine as described by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I’m not sure who first discussed brain in vat scenarios, but you can probably find them in science fiction dating back to the 1960s or even earlier. Metamagician3000 13:01, 23 December 2005

I’m all for interesting facts about the movie, but I wonder if TrojanMan’s extremely long addition to this already-long article is necessary. There is also the matter that his information has some original interpretations or narrative that is more dramatic and story-like than what is needed here as information of the movie and synopsis (which was already included). It’s obvious that TM worked really hard on this and I didn’t want to strike it down without some consensus. It’s just that the addition really has a problem fitting here, and much of this information is already available as appropriate in many other related pages. Thoughts on this? Spencerian 16:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be removed from this page, although it is well written and could probably simply be moved someplace else… But the section isn’t aboutthe film – none of that was mentioned anywhere in the first matrix film – so it shouldn’t be on this page. Oracleoftruth 00:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

## Other Script Authors?

I have heard there was an original story author for the first Matrix, but is never credited. Then the Wachowskis tried to do it themselves the next 2 sequels, which is why their stories are so lame relative to the first story. Is there any truth to this? IMDB does not list any other author credits, afaik, but it seems hard to believe the author of the first is also the author of the last two.

Are you thinking of Sophia Stewart? There’s a section in the article that covers her lawsuit against the Wachowskis. MFNickster 21:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

## Images and neural networks

I reverted the image because the one used on the VHS, DVD and many posters is more recognisable than the unreleased “teaser” poster image, and since it shows the principal actors far more clearly it’s also more informative about the film.

Also, why are the frames shown in the article in black and white? And we could do with a clearer image of Agent Smith. —Nick R 00:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Critical fans have speculated (see Krypto-revisionism) that the machines were actually using the humans’ brains as components in a massively parallel neural network computer, and that the characters were simply mistaken about the purpose. … this was very close to the original explanation. Because the writers felt that non-technical viewers would have trouble understanding this explanation, they abandoned it in favor of the “human power source” explanation. The neural-network explanation, however, is presented in the film’s novelization and the short story “Goliath”, featured on the Matrix website and in the first volume of The Matrix Comics.

Is there a source for the idea that this was the Wachowskis’ original setting? It may be in the novelisation, but is it explicitly mentioned in the “Art of the Matrix” book, for example? (Remember that if those, or any other, books are cited, we should have a “references” section with the ISBNs.)

If it’s true that that was the original background, it would’ve been a far better one – not only would it be a “harder” sci-fi concept, but we’d also escape all those silly “why didn’t the machines just use cows?” jokes. :) —Nick R 00:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I’ll dig out The Art of the Matrix when I get the chance, it’s got some excerpts from the first draft script but unfortunately not the full thing (the shooting script, which was itself revised, just goes with the batteries explaination). It might make a mention of it. For the moment, I’ll put a mention of this in the Trivia section as it’s an interesting point regarding thermodynamics at least.
Does a novelisation of the film even exist? I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen it mentioned anywhere but in this article. Though I have a vague memory of the credits mentioing one…
Also, strangely enough it’s the article on “The Second Renaissance” which goes into most detail on fans’ explanations for the series scientific problems. It’s arguably original research, but if we decide to keep it, I think The Matrix series would be the best place to put it, as it applies to everything in the franchise. —Nick RTalk 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

## “Cult”?

Just a thought… it seems a bit strange that The Matrix is listed as a cult film (“a movie that attracts a small but devoted group of fans, usually failing to achieve considerable success outside that group”, from cult film) when it did \$456,000,000 at the worldwide box office and is #47 of all time? It definitely inspired a lot devoted fans, but certainly not a “small” number Dze27 05:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree. I deleted the cult film reference. SS451 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I would call The Matrix a cult series, because it does have a cult following of people very obsessed with it, in the same way Star Wars is a cult series. Sure, a lot of people have seen both, but there is a very devoted subsection of the population. Cigarette 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the sentence again, …usually failing to achieve considerable success… So you say since it’s a box-office success it can’t be called a cult film? VdSV9 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

## Producer/Songwriter team called “The Matrix”

There is also a producer/songwriter team called “The Matrix”… they are the people behind for example Avril Lavigne.

• look up Matrix. The disambiguation page there lists that group under the “Names, acronyms and trademarks” section. Nihiltres 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

## Images that make you go: Huh?

The images in this page are very disappointing. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one NOT seeing agent Smith in the image with that title. Are you saying you cannot get a better picture than that??

And, needless to say, the Akira image is very irrelevant. Even while knowing Akira is one of the many inspirations for the movie (which means it’s not important enough to get its own image here all by itself), it doesn’t even show any of the scenes it says here it inspired!

Yup, these images do leave a lot to the imagination for those who’d want to see “The Matrix” by themselvesKreachure 04:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: I’ve remove the Akira one, and replaced the Agent Smith with one that actually has Agent Smith. Not the best, but the best I could find that was already here. Ideally, a shot from the first movie showing at least part of his suit would be better. And the “visting the Oracle” shot is very dark as well. This was a film with some great visuals: I expected to see much better (and much more) on this page myself. Turnstep 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I changed the Agent Smith image back: It’s a better image, while definitely lacking: Agent Smith is both shown characteristically and with glasses proper for which movie we’re talking about (they change with the character). I also added the cover of Neuromancer under the Literature section to replace the missing Akira photo, which might be relevant if placed under Cinematography and captioned as a movie that influenced the cinematography of the Matrix. Nihiltres 04:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree with both of those. The current image is a picture of a gun, with a very blurry background image that could be anyone. Certainly, it doesn’t warrant the caption “Agent Smith.” Also, this is an article about the Matrix, so I don’t think images from other movies or books should be added to it: they belong on the Akira or Necromancer page. Not that there isn’t currently *room* for the image: the article is woefully lacking in them. The famous “Neo dodging bullets” image, for example, might be nice on this page. Turnstep 13:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Definitely; the bullet-time image would be far more appropriate for the visual effects section than the pic from the lobby scene, which doesn’t even have a decent caption at the moment (“charging bullets” indeed)! —Nick R 13:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now… Some of the irrelevant images have been taken out. However, some images that remain are quite hard to see, mostly too dark – namely: Morpheus presents Neo with a choice and Subway duel, VdSV9 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

## Wild Wild West

What made “Wild Wild West” a big hit (referenced in the trivia section as it pertains to the role of Neo being offered to Will Smith)? I remember the film getting horrible reviews, it being rather unwatchable, and the worldwide box office numbers falling short of the costs. That’s a big hit?

Maybe I don’t understand the movie business…

## Reorganisation of Matrix articles

Certain articles are in need of better organisation. I’ve proposed merging locations within the Matrix (The City and Club Hel) into Matrix (fictional universe) (see that article’s discussion page), but I also think that the various ships need to be merged into one article, since according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters:

2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be listed with short descriptions in a “List of minor characters.” This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

But I’m not sure what the best name for the article would be. Perhaps:

… and so on. There are a lot of possibilities; which is the best? I think the second…

Also, the secondary characters listed in Template:Matrix should be merged into a List of minor Matrix characters or List of minor Matrix series characters (as with List of minor Star Wars characters). The Architect‘s article might be long enough to stay separate, though. —Nick RTalk 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and am offering to do them. I think that the articles should be called List of ships in the Matrix universe and List of minor characters in the Matrix universe respectively, because that’s the way it was done with the Star Wars characters, the only similar example I know of. Atropos 07:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made List of ships in the Matrix series. Now all that’s left is to remove the old pages.

OK then, let’s get to it. The template will have to change: merge Main Characters with Secondary Characters into Characters. And all the 2ndary char pages into one bigger article. VdSV9 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I’ve made a start on List of minor characters in the Matrix series. One question: how should the links to pages in other languages – such as Cypher on the Polish Wikipedia – be handled? Removed entirely?
Also, I noticed that we’ve now got an article on List of programs and machines in the Matrix series. We need to add a “main article” template for those characters that deserve their own extended article (like the Agents and possibly the Architect), and for those that don’t, completely merge the “main” article into the “list” article.–Nick RTalk 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The other lang wikipedias I believe should get links within Cypher’s section of the article. That’s what I’d done in mine. ;] VdSV9 13:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

## Removed “Symbolism” section

I’ve removed the following text from the article. My comments are in bold. Most of these were removed because, even if true, without any citations they’re almost certainly original research. —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

== Symbolism ==

One may be able understand the complex synopsis of The Matrix just with an an attentive observation of the metaphors created by particular directing techniques. The usage of this symbolism gives the work additional poetic meaning that enables us to comprehend the nature of a concept from the form to the content, and not vice versa, as it is usually done.

• A rather pretentious start, if I may say so. :) —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

=== Trace program ===

In the first scene we see a green blinking cursor pusling on a black screen. In this first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film, a living machine, the duality of man and Artificial Intelligence. The cursor pulses like the beat of a human heart, quoting the Wachowski brothers brothers themselves, in the pre-original script of 1996:

A blinking cursor pulses in the electric darkness like a heart coursing with phosphorous light, buring beneath the derma of black-neon glass

• Despite the citation of the 1996 screenplay, this interpretation is original research. —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I wrote 1996 since I had that version in my hands at the moment, and I did not want to create a factual mistake. However, now that I looked up the 3 June 1997 version, the final draft, that part is unaltered. Federico Pistono 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

=== The role of music ===

American composer Don Davis proposes a clear distinction between the two worlds (humans and machines), thanks to which we can understand if the characters are acting in the Matrix or in the real world, throughout the usage of choral and symphonic music that represents humans, synthesisers for the machines.

The plot of the two goes beyond the superficial analysis of the movie, in fact when in the Matrix we hear a choral sound we understand it symbolises a human presence in the machine world, vice versa a synthetic sound in the real world means danger, like the arrival of a sentinel.

• While the fact that there are distinct styles in the musical score is true, again this interpretation is original research. —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I see. Actually, this is widely accepted among the most respected critics in the world, as such professor Mario Guidorizzi, who confirmed my theory. Plus, Don Davis himself says so in The Matrix Revisited, how is that an interpretation? p.s. In The Matrix Revisited are the creators themselves to speak about a particular decision they made. Federico Pistono 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

=== The role of colours ===

Like in the music, the same goes for the colours. The chromatic game plays a relevant role in the film. A green layer is reflected in every single scene, shot, piece of cloth in the Matrix, whereas in the real world there is a predominance of blue, that creates the contrast.The only green element in the real world is Link’s console, which is in fact the Matrix’ code.

• The mention of the green tint in the Matrix is mentioned in the “trivia” section. Plus there’s a reference to Link, who’s not even in this film! —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think it is better to have all divided into sections and topics, instead of a list of quotation not connected to each other. As for Link, I admit, my bad, it was a distraction. ^_^ Federico Pistono 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The cables in the Nebuchadnezzar are blue and red, like venous and arterial blood, the ship is itself a living being, which gives the crew the chance to survive. However, it also needs the loving care of all its members, who are constantly reparing it, meaning the symbiotic relationship between the two entities. One cannot live without the other, and so it goes for the Matrix.

• This interpretation is original research. —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I see. Sam as above, mentioned as well in The Matrix Revisited, how is that an interpretation? Federico Pistono 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

=== The role of names ===

In The Matrix the name of a character often explains their role in the story.

For a detailed discussion see article The Matrix character names
• Neo means new. If anagrammed you get One, his real role in the story. Also, it is a word of three characters, we shall rememeber that the numer three is redundant and full of philosophical meanings throughout the whole story. Dividing the One by three, you get 0.3333333 {\displaystyle 0.3333333} that goes to infinity. This operation cannot be done by a machine without either truncation or by rounding it. He’s both the One and the fallacy of the system, who can free the human race from slavery.
• Morpheus (“he who forms, shapes, molds”, from the Greek morphe) is the principal Greek god of dreams and sleep. He is the one who awakens Neo from his dormient state, giving him a new life.
• Cypher differs from the rest of the crew from vaious aspects. He is the only one that has a goatee, and when Neo is introduced by Morpheus to his new comrades, Cypher is the only one to speaks. His name reminisces Lucypher, Satan. He betrays his friends, killing most of them.
• Link evidently the operator is the physical link between the two worlds, without him the crew is powerless.
• When Neo is asked if he wants to meet Morphues, he is redirected to the Adam Street Bridge, meaning the imminent neo genesis.
• Smith, Jones are common surnames in Western English speaking countries, it indicates the seriality and the lack of identity of these characters, who are in fact programs.
• Also Switch, Apoc, Mouse and Dozer, even if in minor part, are metaphors of their role.

This section is thoroughly covered in the article The Matrix character names. A link to that article is enough. —Nick RTalk 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The article to which you refer is long and it presents all the characters of the trilogy, whereas we are talking about “The Matrix” only. Don’t we often have a summary of a longer article with the ref. everywhere? E.g. Eragon, Full Metal Alchemist, …., the list goes to ∞ {\displaystyle \infty } Federico Pistono 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about removing all that, it’s just that I’m often wary of large amounts of text getting added to articles; sometimes they might be copied-and-pasted from elsewhere, and I’m an advocate of the idea that longer articles are not necessarily better ones.

OK, some of these things can be restored, as long as the full citations are given. But consider adding some parts that apply to the whole series to the article on The Matrix series instead, which already has sections devoted to interpretations etc.

I haven’t watched Revisited in a while, so I’d forgotten some of those comments. If you have The Ultimate Matrix Collection (I don’t), the commentaries on that might also be cited.

Also, I agree with your comment about trivia sections – in general if something can be stated in the main text of an article, it should be. This isn’t IMDb!

I still think the first few lines are needlessly verbose, though. :) Out of place with the style of the rest of the article, anyway. —Nick RTalk 10:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

— This section was restored by User:Pain. I’ve combined it with the Influences and interpretations section. However, the tone is still very out of place with that of the rest of the article. There are also some non-NPOV phrases such as “In this first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film”. This section needs work. Like I said above, expanding articles isn’t always for the better, but I’m sure it’ll improve the article when all this is verified and cleaned up… —Nick RTalk 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more on that. If I wanted my idea to be replicated verbatim I may have just created a section on my website, instead I would like to watch the article improve stimulating the critical reaction of the community.
As for the “verbosity”: sorry, but not being a native speaker, this is my natural way of expressing myself with my interlocutors, it may sound funny or verbose to somebody, but this is how I usually write. Federico Pistono 03:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

## Userbox

 This user took the red pill, not the blue pill.

Chernicky 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

## Training

I’m not too sure right now, but I have in my mind the phrase He’s… a machine, ten hours straight! after asked by Morpheus about how Neo is doing in the training. However, the article says …6 hours of training…

I’ll give it another watch to make sure before changing it if no one does it first. VdSV9 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I was left talking to myself, I’ll trust my instincts on this one. It’s very clear in my mind “…ten hours straight, he’s… a machine!” VdSV9 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

## Question regarding 1999

The Matrix simulation takes place in 1999, however does time move on there (ie. 1900 – 1999)? What happens when its 2020 in the Matrix and human beings discover AI again? Would the machines allow the system to reach far in advances?

Also I’m a bit confused with the whole ‘reloading’ the matrix every 100 years. How were there 6 Ones, it would require 1 every 20 years.

Dude, two things:

1. Please sign your posts with three or four of these: ~
2. How the ‘ell did you get to one every 20 yearss? If they “reload” every 100 years it means the machines have been ruling the world for about 600 years. VdSV9 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In the other movies, they make it seem like a lot more time has passed. Even Morpheus said that he couldn’t tell Neo the exact year because they dont know–the Architect made this clear in Reloaded when he told Neo about the other iterations of The Matrix. So it is actually possible that it has been at least 600 years Jeremys779 10:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is just speculation but, maybe when Neo reinserts his code as the architect suggests, it resets the matrix and goes back to…say 1960, since Neo seems to have been born in that approx time, and it’s every 40 years. This is not something ever fully explained so we can speculate on this forever Graveenib 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

## Don Davis site

In the reference for the “mirrors and music” section, I added an additional link to this site. I only found it today, but it’s an excellent resource for info on the music of the Matrix series. I thought it might be worth pointing out here, in case anyone wants to refer to it to expand that section or the articles on the series or the other films/games. But be warned, it’s a Geocities site with lots of images, so it’s likely to exceed its alotted data transfer quite frequently. —Nick RTalk 15:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

## Trace Program

According to [2], the source of “A blinking cursor pulses in the electric darkness like a heart coursing with phosphorous light, buring beneath the derma of black-neon glass” can be found in the book “The Art of the Matrix”. I don’t own the book though, so I can’t verify this myself… AbsolutDan 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know if “The Art of the Matrix” contains part of the original script or the entire work, but I know that that particulat quote is in the orginal script, I wrote it myself reading from a copy of the original version. Federico Pistono 07:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind citing it in that section? Someone requested a citation for it. Thanks! AbsolutDan 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not manage to find a free online version of the original script, I have a copy of the orignal on paper, from which I cited the piece. Federico Pistono 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference for explanation of Adams Street Bridge in the Influences and interpretations section? I assumed it was also named after locations in downtown Chicago like the intersections: “Wabash and Lake“, “State and Balbo” and “Franklin and Erie“. Also I think Laurence Fishburne is saying Adams (not Adam) and the close captioning does have “Adams” –Bogsat 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

## There is no spoon…

…But is there originality?

Matrix version: A monk-like boy says “only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you’ll realize that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.”

Chan Buddhism version: A young monk, Huineng, says (more or less): “Bodhi is no tree. The bright mirror has no stand. All is originally nothing. Where does the dust collect?” Plus: Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: The flag is moving.’ The other said: The wind is moving.’ The sixth patriach [Huineng] happened to be passing by. He told them: `Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving.[3]

So we have: Someone who looks like an enlightened young monk / An enlightened young monk. A spoon, bright, reflecting, and does not exist / A mirror, bright, reflecting, and has no stand. The spoon does not bend, but oneself does / The flag does not move, but one’s mind does. Huh-hmph. Of course, the Wachowskis might not have read about Huineng and the aforementioned passage (which are merely some of the most well-known things in Chan Buddhism), so this is probably, oh, just a coincidence. *wink at the Wachowskis*

Shawnc 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we can talk about originality, especially when the Wachowsky themselves declared they were very much influenced by several books and thinkers. That includes both western philosophy, but also Buddhism and other influences by Japanese animation (Ghost in the Shell above all), among the others. I personally think that the point is not whether it was original or not, at a time like this you can hardly find ANYTHING original, but if it was wisely presented or not. Federico Pistono 08:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The “originality” comment was tongue-in-cheek; nothing is truly original. I’m a fan of the film and am merely pointing out a potential source of the scene. Shawnc 08:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This is definitely not an original concept. In mystical Hinduism, this concept is also being followed to a much deeper level. There is a saying that everything is Brahman and only Brahman exist. The Wachowsky brothers were also influenced by Hindu ideas (this was revealed in the boxed edition of the trilogy). —Siva1979Talk to me 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

## Movie Timeline

The story continues, six months later, in The Matrix Reloaded.

I’m not sure that it is really six months later. While in Reloaded they say that they have freed many minds in the past six months, they never really say that it has been six months since the last movie. To me it seems like it has been longer…at least a year and a half (and not just because of the amount of time between movies!). Has anyone found information either in support, or against this theory? I did not want to edit the main page unless at least one person can support my theory. There are probably some clues hidden in either Reloaded or The Animatrix
Jeremys779 10:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the storyline continues at least six months later, as one may assume, but there is nothing cited that verifies this. Graveenib 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

## Julien Denner

Someone put the name Julien Denner instead of Keanu Reeves as the actor for Neo. After reading the Julien Denner page, I decided to change it back.

Vandalism, plain n’ simple. Some yutz trying to assert themselves. Tommyt 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

## origin of “matrix”

I’ve removed an erroneous reference referring to the Wachowskis “pinch[ing]” the “matrix” title and concept from William Gibson, since the concept had been present in science fiction for years, and the first reference to such a concept by name – “matrix” – occurred as far back as the 1950s, and has seen several uses since then. Blintz 02:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

## Cypher’s Meeting with Agent Smith

This is something that I cannot understand. How in the first movie did Cypher arrive undetected to a meeting in the matrix with Agent Smith? There could not have been an operator to insert and/or remove him from the matrix in order to do this. Also, how come no one caught him plugging himself in? From what we see in the first two films, it is impossible for a person to get in and out of the matrix by themselves. There must be an operator of some kind to control the phone lines. Cypher could not have done this; he would have been caught. Is there any explanation for this, or is this just a mistake in the movies? — June 30, 2006 —69.210.26.15 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Doncroft

Being the technician the audience has to assume that he does plug in himself.

He knew what phones he could use in the area and the end time of the meeting. He could have it autodial to a particular matrix phone. He would be there at the correct time and place to answer it. Your correct in that the movie does not address this. We’re left to speculation. Morphh 16:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he had help? Graveenib 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

these are all very good questions. unless mouse was the one helping him i think the possiblity is fairly slim, he never mentions anyone else besides morphous when he deals with smith, if he had an someone operating for him that person would read the interation between cypher and smith and know that he/she had been double crossed. the reason why it could only be mouse is that mouse is the only one he really didn’t try to kill, but thats only because he really dind’t have a chance so who knows. he was seen siting there reading the code and drinking right before neo inadvertantly sneeks up on him, which may indicate that he has good knowledge of the code, possibly at an operator type level, so the autodialer idea sounds most provable. but then again it is a movie things like that happen some times.–Manwithbrisk 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall this coming up in The Art of the Matrix somewhere, or perhaps in one of the making of gadgets. I think they had a similar explaination – when Neo surprises him (“scared the bejeesus out of me”) he’s supposed to be setting up the system for his little jaunt. Sockatume 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

## sophia stewart mother of the matrix

http://www.daghettotymz.com/matrix/matrix.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Stewart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix#Sophia_Stewart_legal_case. It is already in the article. Konman72 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

## Pictures people pictures

Come on, the page used to look good but now everyone keeps erasing the pictures.

Hello, could you add Catalan language link. You can see it at:

http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix

Done, thanks. toresbe 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

## Impact

The success of The Matrix, particularly on the DVD format[citation needed], led to two sequels. The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were filmed simultaneously during one shoot, and released in two parts in 2003. They see an evolution in many concepts laid down by the original film: philosophical parallels, religious allegories, and an expanded scope to talk about issues pertaining to consciousness. The first movie’s relatively plot-lite introductory tale is replaced by a more involved story centred on the impending attack of the human enclave of Zion by a vast machine army. Neo also learns more about the history of the Matrix, his role as the One and the prophecy that he will end the war. The sequels also incorporate longer and more ambitious action scenes, as well as improvements in bullet time and other visual effects. Although the sequels provided closure for the characters and the storyline while still incorporating the themes of the original movie, they were less well-received than the first.

Should this be on the first movie page? Shouldn’t this information be under matrix series? This is a good synopsis, but I don’t think it is appropriate here. Graveenib 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps some of it should be left behind, like its success on DVD and leading to sequels, but the whole part about the sequels should be in the series article. Konman72 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

## Re-Direct from Matrixism

I’m adding a link to Matrixism in the Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix section because the Matrixism stub on wikipedia re-directs here. 71.133.171.214 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We’ve been through this on multiple pages. Your linking of the geocities link is considered linkspam, and will be removed. The fact that the word “matrixism” is a redirect to “The Matrix” has nothing to do with the supposed religion on the Geocities site. — Jeff3000 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure it does. If you look at the history of it. If wikipedia want’s to avoid confusion why have the re-direct at all? 71.133.168.151 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? So why does the geocities link appear on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages for this page. By an overwhelming consensus, it is considered linkspam. — Jeff3000 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason to have a redirect instead of an article is that the topic is not considered notable enough for mention. Kasreyn 06:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It does seem reason enough to have an external link. Wouldn’t that serve Wikipedia users better? What standard does Matrixism not meet such that there shouldn’t be an external link? 69.239.30.213 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotion (see WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a soapbox), and adding your own webpages, (see WP:EL) — Jeff3000 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s not a valid argument as Matrixism is not my webpage. 69.239.30.213 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour does not indicate it as such. You have very much tried to include the link on many pages, and thus WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a soapbox easily applies. — Jeff3000 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I went over to the page on “Internet and Religion” because someone one in this discussion asked me to. I am not using Wikipedia as a soap box. I have been drawn into this because people are holding Matrixism up to unreasonable standards that they do not apply to other religions on Wikipedia. My motivation is that something unjust is happening here and that bothers me. Like I said before I am not a “Matrixist” and Matrixism is not my webpage. 71.133.168.221 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a Matrixist, then be detached from the very large consensus that the Geocities link will not be accepted as an External link in this page, or other pages. — Jeff3000 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If there was a valid argument as to not including the link I would. As has been said before there are at least five verifiable reputable references for Matrixism and Wikipedia itself has a re-direct for Matrixism that leads here. I would argue that you and others are the one’s who are baised and should approach this entry more objectively. 71.133.168.221 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So everybody else is wrong, and you are right? I’m not going to comment on this any further. I think it is very clear what the consensus is. — Jeff3000 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a consensus of people with a bias towards squelching this particular religion. Many Christians use The Matrix movies as a means to protelytize their own religion. Many Chrisitians and others lable all new religions cults as they see them as direct threats. Further Baha’is and Muslims seem to see Matrixism as threat because it recognizes a revelation that is subsequent to their own. I am sure that if all of these religious groups did not see The Matrix as important religious capital Matrixism would long ago have been listed here on Wikipedia. 71.133.168.221 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The references mentioned above are as follows:

“Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament” Dr. Adam Possamai, Peter Lang Publishing Group 2005 ISBN 90-5201-272-5 / US-ISBN 0-8204-6634-4 pb.

“The Joy of Sects” Sam Jordison Publisher: Robson Books Publication Date: 7 November 2005 ISBN 1861059051

“In Search of New Age Spiritualities” Adam Possamai, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2005 ISBN 0754652130

Newspaper article in The Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005590116,00.html

Newspaper article in The Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Theyre-all-god-movies/2005/05/18/1116361618786.html 71.133.168.221 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note, as I have at Talk:List of religions, that of these sources, one is an unreliable tabloid, one (the Sydney Morning Herald link) is merely reporting (and rather skeptically I might add) on Possamai’s book, and two of the others are by the same author. This does not put forward a compelling case for the notability of this religion. Kasreyn 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself re-directs for the term “Matrixism” right to the external links marked “Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix”. This re-direct was created at a time when there was an external link to Matrixism here. It doesn’t make any sense to the service of Wikipedia’s users to not have that link here.This is after all an external link. I don’t think that it has to pass the notability muster that you imply here. Again it is just an external link. 71.139.66.157 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’t feel it’s a problem. People looking for “Matrixism” will find several notable links on the religious and philosophical underpinnings of the Matrix movies. It works for me.–Rosicrucian 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

the link would have been changed if you hadn’t been vandlizing the site. It was protected because of you and that is why it hasn’t changed

I could invent a new religion called ‘Steven Seagalism’ based on the philosophy found in Steven Seagal movies one night, but that wouldn’t make it notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Joffeloff 13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If ‘Steven Seagalism’ gained followers, was referenced in books on religions, if it was a topic at academic conferences and in university classrooms and if it had been mentioned in various newspapers I think that it would then be considered notable. Matrixism has done all of that.

It seems that some people here are trying to characterize Matrixism as the work of one person and a fictional religion that has no following. To me this seems like an unreasonable conjecture. Just the fact that Matrixism comes up with such a high ranking for internet searches and has been mentioned in various publications suggest that a large number of people have visited its website. If religions like Jediism are any indication Matrixism has in all likelyhood truly gained the relatively meager following that is claimed on their website. 68.127.234.26 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is widely accepted that the majority of those involved in the Jedi census movement were in it for humor value. There is no indication that any but a vanishingly small minority of those respondents actually practise any sort of religion based on Jediism. Also, a lot of people visiting a website does not mean the site’s purported religion has a lot of believers. For all we know, all those visitors came to point and laugh. It could be argued that that makes Matrixism notable; depends on one’s opinion on whether hit tracking is a good way to determine notability. But what it doesn’t do is show that a lot of people actually believe in Matrixism. Kasreyn 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the Jedi religion. The genuine following does not appear to vanishing but rather seem to be becoming more entreched in their belief. I believe an institute for the study of Jediism was created in Romania recently. With regard to the number of followers of Matrixism it is of course hard to prove Matrixism being an internet based religion and all. However judging from what is happening with the Jedi religion movement the numbers presented as they are on the Matrixism website (number of people who signed up as opposed to hardcore activists) seems probable. 69.239.31.56 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Added reference to Matrixism in Impact section as per Wikipedia vote for Merge and Re-Direct 69.226.108.27 03:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop readding the link, and reusing the same arguments that you’ve rehashed many times over. Think link will be deleted each time. — Jeff3000 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

## Removal from “to-do” list

Anonymous user 24.0.201.234 added the following text to the “to-do” list:

Under influences please give due credit to the 1985 “Max Headroom – 20 Minutes into the Future” – which includes a bleak urban wasteland setting in the future, a controller sitting in front of numerous CRT’s directing Edison Carter with voice commands as he tries to avoid being captured throughout a high rise building, controller telling him when to cross doorways, hiding from agents, “blanks” (those rare humans that have unplugged from the system) and even a “Matrix” for gaining access to Bryce’s lab.

I have removed this, because… well, if we were to include everything that has been mentioned over the last 7 years when people have confidently said “The Matrix ripped off…” then the article would be at least twice as long as it is now. :) The film does reuse lots of elements that had previously been used many sci-fi stories for a long time before the film; it’s not worth listing every one of them. I mean, the first time I came across a sci-fi story in which someone instantly learned something by connecting their mind to a computer was in an episode of Bugs – in fact, they were using it to learn how to fly an aircraft! Do you think that should be included too?

My point is that most of the sci-fi concepts (as well as other elements, like the visual style) in The Matrix had been around for many years, being used and re-used in many tales long before the Wachowskis arrived and brought them together into an extremely successful film. You could probably refer to hundreds of sci-fi works produced over the last 50 years and describe them in such a way that every single one of them could have been the inspiration for The Matrix.

So obviously we can’t list everything that people want to add. There’s bound to be a lot of people adding their own personal favourites to the list, and a lot of arguments when they’re removed, so we ought to come up with a guideline for which ones should be listed, both on this page and The Matrix series, which contains the majority of the discussion on the films’ influences.

While writing this comment I did begin working out a big list of criteria based on who had noted it as an influence on the film (e.g. something mentioned in the film itself or cited by a member of the crew would have priority over everything else), before going on to propose a restructuring of the article to make it more similar to featured film articles. But since I originally only posted to justify the removal of that bit from the to-do list, I’ll stop here. :) Maybe I’ll get around to posting the other suggestions soon… —Nick RTalk 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

## Addition of “Production” section and restructuring of article

I’m going to begin rearranging the structure of this article a bit. Take a look at some of these film-related articles that have become featured articles:

There’s a bit of variation, but in general I think a chronological approach works best. So I’m going to add sections on Production and Release, and move sections and information around a bit, and make other sections (Visual effects for example) sub-sections. The Production section can become very extensive; due to the vast amount of information in The Matrix Revisited (we can note that Bound was a test for the untried directors; describe how Steve Skroce, Geof Darrow and Yuen Woo-ping became involved; and that Keanu Reeves was told to read several specific books before making the film).

To preserve this general chronological order, I’ll also move the section on The Matrix franchise towards the end of the article, after Release, but add a note earlier in the article about it being the fisrt entry in the series.

I’ll be bold and get started on these changes right away; just wanted to let you know my intentions before I begin. —Nick RTalk 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I’ve made a start on this restructuring, adding those sections, but I haven’t really added much to the Production section yet. As mentioned above, The Matrix Revisited is an excellent source of information on the making of the film.
Also, some of the info currently under “Influences and interpretations” could be moved under “Production” instead. Joel Silver’s story about Ghost in the Shell being used as a visualisation tool could be mentioned there. The note on the film’s production design being based around grid patterns and the colour green could be described under a “Production design” subsection. And if you look at some of those featured film articles, they often have dedicated “Music” sections, so perhaps the note about Don Davis’ music being influenced by the theme of mirrors could be moved to the “Production” section, too. (This site is an excellent resource for info on his score for the films, by the way.)
So what do you think? Leave them under the “Influences” section, or move them under “Production”? —Nick RTalk 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I’m going to move them. I think that since things like the music and production design have been confirmed by the film-makers, those points should be made in a less subjective-sounding section. —Nick RTalk 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

## Removed text from influences section

User:Iondream recently copied the entirety of the “Influences and interpretations” section across from The Matrix series. While this section does need many improvements, I don’t feel that directly copying all that across is the best way to do that. Reasons:

1. The Matrix series article can discuss the other entries in the series, but this one is mainly limited to the first film.
2. Keeping two large identical texts both up-to-date can be quite a task when changes are being made to each. IMO it’s better to make them different – keep this one fairly short, and use the “main articles” template to point people to the more extensive discussion. (Is a detailed comparison with The Invisibles really necessary? A brief mention that people have noted that there are similarities is enough for this page.)
3. While hardly up to featured article standard, I feel that the text of the “Influences” section on this page is generally better than the equivalent section in “The Matrix series” – more concise and focused. I think adding that sprawling section from the other page weakens this one.

Incorporating relevant information from other pages can be very good – but simply copying long passages across might not be. So because of that, I’ve changed it back. —Nick RTalk 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AgreedGraveenib 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

## Add Under Trivia Section: Keanu Reeves also plays “the Buddha” in the movie “The Little Buddha”

I think this is a significant fact: Keanu Reeves portrayed the spiritual teacher “The Buddha” in the American film “The Little Buddha.” In “The Little Buddha,” Reeves is a religious figure who, among many things, acheives enlightenment and defeates Maya(illusion). While watching “The Little Buddha” I remember seeing special effects that were again repeated in “The Matrix” (See the scene where the “buddha” obtains enlightenment. Compare this to the ending scene in the Matrix, where Neo discovers he is beyond the rules of the Matrix, and is able to see through the Matrix’s illusion…both scenes are very similar…is the Little Buddha being alluded to?) 2c me 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

is the Little Buddha being alluded to? Good question. If you can find the answer from a reputable source than yes go ahead and add it and cite your source. At this point, however, it’s just original research. Thank you for using the talk page first. —Graveenib 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an article: “There Is No Spoon: The Matrix” taken from a “non-peer-reviewed electronic journal and archive of philosophy.” [Link: http://www.friesian.com/matrix.htm]

This article suggest that Keanu Reeves, who plays both “The Buddha” and “Neo, the One” are part of the “ Buddhist echoes…we find in this movie.”

I quote this article: “Keanu Reeves (Hawaiian) as “Thomas Anderson” or the computer hacker “Neo” the “Messianic “One,” although laden with Christian imagery, and actually called “Jesus Christ” by one character, here gets to play the Buddha again – as he did in The Little Buddha.”

The article also mentions “that Neo ‘woke up’ – what Buddha means…” and that “Keanu Reeves actually did play the Buddha once.”

That’s about all I could find :-) 2c me 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm… this site is user created, so anyone can post to it. Not sure if this is enough to qualify as encyclopedic content since this is merely a coincidence untill the wachowskis acknowledge a connection. —Graveenib 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just suggesting ways of incorporating this into the article… the introductory sentence of the “Influences and interpretations” section ends, “…including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism.” You might want to simply add this article as a footnote (using <ref> tags) after the second in that list. You could note the link to Keanu Reeves’s previous role either in that footnote itself, or you could incorporate it into the main text. (Only briefly, IMO.) Also, it could be noted in an appropriate place in the article The Matrix series, which also talks about the series’ references and influences. —Nick RTalk 23:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

## Books

Perhaps there are enough books (solely about the Matrix) to justify a section on books seperate from a section on articles.–Darrelljon 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

## Meaning of The Matrix

“In the first scene we see a green cursor blinking on a black screen. In this first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film, a living machine, the duality of human and Artificial Intelligence.”

I believe that most interpretations of The Matrix here take it too literally. “the most profound meaning of the entire film” is nothing to do with machines or artificial intelligence. It is a representation of our current society, in which our governments shield us from the reality (e.g. wars) outside so that we provide a source of energy/processing power for the nation to function. I don’t have any sources for this interpretation but some must exist. I am sure this is the main point that the Wachowskis are trying to get across, V for Vendetta is a much less subtle version of the same message. Their use of Rage Against The Machine also seems to support this. Did anyone else interpret the film this way? Kernow 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the sentence you cited is just J. Random Editor’s opinion and not worth including. Original research; kill it. Kasreyn 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I guess what I am saying is I believe this is the major theme of the film and we need to find a source to represent it. Kernow 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I objected to this section when it was first added (see above: Talk:The Matrix#Removed “Symbolism” section), but though I’ve been uncomfortable with it since, I haven’t removed it. But I think it’s time for it to go: original research, and the word “profound” seems a bit excessive and non-NPOV to me: that tiny paragraph really doesn’t make clear what exactly is profound about it. As for your own interpretation, Kernow, I don’t really see how it’s related to what’s already written in that section, and to be honest your brief description sounds like original research to me. Even with links to reviews and essays and things, I think that adding subjective interpretations to an article like this is always going to be difficult, which is why I’m going to try and reduce that a bit (see above). —Nick RTalk 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also a great deal of mythological and religious symbolism. Neo is Christ of the future. He is the 7th version, prior versions may not have been other NEOs as depicted in the Architects room, but rather as Noah, Jesus, Mohammed, Ismael, Buddah, etc. Messiahs that came before him.

Persephone was married to Hades (Merovingian)who owned club “Hel”, which could mean that Persephone is the Oracles(Demeter) and the Archetects(Zeus)daughter. The subway conductor was the boatman of the river Styx, Charon only swap the river for railroad. The oracles bodyguard Seraph, which is singular for Seraphim or a great angel, was the ArchAngel Michael. When he goes to club “Hell” the demonic bodyguards said “look its Seraph look he is without his wings.”

The Matrix is the media, the government, religion, our Federal Reserve tax system etc, all dividers and systems of control used to turn us all into slaves in a prison which we cannot sense. But you can feel it when you watch television, when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes.

the images of neo on the screans were not of the pervious “ones” but of all possible reactions that neo could have had to what ever the architect was saying.–Manwithbrisk 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

## IMDB rating removed

as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive4#Infobox_IMDb_rating Z3u2 06:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

## External Link to Matrix Religion Website

I’m putting this in with the Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix category of external links but perhaps it would be better if it were in the trivia section.

References:

Title:In Search of New Age Spiritualities ISBN: 0754652130 Publisher: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Author(s): Adam Possamai Format: Hardcover Publication Date: Nov 1, 2005 Pages: 160

“The Joy of Sects” Sam Jordison Publisher: Robson Books Publication Date: 7 November 2005 ISBN 1861059051 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.133.212 (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please see above. This discussion has occured many times, and by a very large consensus the link has been removed each time. The link has even appeared on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. Please refrain from adding it. — Jeff3000 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a new addition to the list of referrences to Matrixism.

Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the 21st Century, Gary Bouma, Cambridge University Press, Dec 2006, ISBN-13: 9780521673891 | ISBN-10: 0521673895.

Previous arguements for not including a link to Matrixism centered around notability. This new book seems to address that concern. Matrixism was discussed in a nationally syndicated radio talk show in Australia recently. This is also a new reference and further shows the notability of Matrixism. There are many undocumented links in Wikipedia’s “The Matrix” article. I do not understand why something that has been so well documented and is of genuine interest to readers should not be included in this article. 125.22.135.201 07:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For the notability to be accepted try to recreate the article. The wide consensus is that Matrixism is a hoax. — Jeff3000 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy making judgement such as the one you just made is considered POV. The author’s of the articles written about Matrixism do not share this opinion. The notability of a subject should be taken from sources not from opinion and POV. Do you have a source that shows that Matrixism is a hoax? 59.144.8.85 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia also works by consensus and the overwhelming consensus over many many discussions is that the link is vandalism. See Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. — Jeff3000 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus over so many different discussions:

And many other countless discussions over a multitude of articles, where each time the link was considered linkspam and placed on the most vandalised pages. You should strive to get the page created as notable, and then the notability on other pages can be discussed. — Jeff3000 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a new reference therefore new discussion is warranted. It is not an argument at this point to refer to old arguments. 59.92.92.111 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, you also seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia has some sort of punative policy towards previous vandalism. That may be your feeling but it is not Wikipedia policy nor is it in the best interest of this encyclopedia. 59.92.92.111 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The burden of proof in notability cases lies with the person trying to add the article/link. This was not successfully asserted when the Matrixism article came up for deletion and it has yet to be asserted here. Sockatume 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion how many books and published articles must make note of something before you would consider it notable? Four books, various newspaper articles and a sydicated radio broadcast seem well beyond any threshold of doubt here. 59.92.92.111 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, you still don’t provide the citations here. Sockatume 11:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand it appears that the references have been provided above. So why the comment? 65.102.21.156 08:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It’s a geocities page; that pretty much sums it up. —InShaneee 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is a geocities website is irrelevant. The site has no add banners showing that it paid for just like any other web address. 59.92.92.111 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the same standard is not being applied to this as the rest of the links on this site. One has to ask “Why?” Religious bigotry seems to be the most obvious answer. 59.92.92.111 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The so-called sources that you have, have been easily dismissed by User:Philwelch in the past discussions. The most prominent author in your list of sources is from Adam Possamai, and as Philwelch stated “his opinion is not based on scholarly research, but rather on taking an unsolicited email at face value. Possamai’s scholarly work does not contain any study of Matrixism in any depth or detail–only passing comments.” — Jeff3000 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, that was only one of the many publications that mention Matrixism and it certainly does not address the new reference. 69.239.23.196 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the movie The Matrix. As per Wikipedia policy, WP:EL, external links have to be informative about the subject in question. Matrixism, as a religion, does not talk about the movie, and is a self-published website, as opposed to the other websites which are directly about the movie and are not self-published. The link is not appropropriate and will be removed. — Jeff3000 13:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The link seems do have everything to do with the movie. As far as your characterization of “self-published” what does that even mean? It seems most likely that you are remooving the link because you are a Baha’i and think that your religion is being threatened. Be honest. I am returning the link as there seems to be no good reason to exclude it.

Also it appears that you have removed this link several times without discussion. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. 65.102.21.156 16:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that you must assume good faith. Also, by consensus the link is not acceptable on this page. — Jeff3000 19:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit is in good faith. When you delete without discussion it is not in good faith. Again you relate old arguments without addressing the new reference. 65.102.21.156 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, the link has been considered not appropriate based on multiple rounds of consensus, which is the way Wikipedia works. Stop reinserting it. — Jeff3000 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again there is a new reference that addresses the previous concerns. It seems that you are ignoring this just because of your personal objections to Matrixism as a Baha’i. The old arguments have been addressed by new information. Again it is not sufficient to simply refer to the past information. 71.215.128.75 00:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One new reference doesn’t make it notable. Read WP:Notability. Until consensus has been changed, the link doesn’t stay. Try recreating a Matrixism article, and then we can talk about it being notable in this page. And once again, assume good faith, I am not bringing in personal beliefs, just Wikipedia policies, and you should do the same. My faith has nothing to do with it. — Jeff3000 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is an entire Wikipedia article necessary for posting an external link? Also there’s not only one new reference but two. I have yet to post the specifics of the later but here it is now:
The Spirit of Things presented by Rachel Kohn on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National 20 August 2006.
Clearly this would be now above any reasonable good faith threshold for notability. 71.215.128.75 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of trying to recreate the article to have another general discussion on the notability of Matrixism. The external link if it deserves to be anywhere would be on that page (as the official presence of the organization on the web), and not on this page, as the webpage of the religion doesn’t help to increase the understanding of the movie (which is the purpose of external links on this page); instead Matrixism is a derivative of the movie; there are many different derivatives of the movie, and links to any of them would not be appropriate; the current external links are all germane to the movie. You should read both WP:EL and WP:NotabilityJeff3000 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism’s website illustrates the religious and philosophical ideas which the movie The Matrix is derivative of not the other way around. Matrixism is no more derivative of the movie than Idealism, the Philosophy of the Matrix, and the True Nature of Matter by Harun Yahya yet you have no objection to the latter’s link being part of this article. As for making a whole article on Matrixism I don’t think that is warranted at this time. However an external link here would be informative and of interest to readers. 71.215.128.75 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are telling me that the Matrixism religion caused the movie “The Matrix” to be written. Sorry, but there is no evidence for that. Good catch on the Harun Yahya link, I’ll remove it as well. — Jeff3000 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That’s a pretty ridiculous red herring your waving around there. What I am saying is that The Matrix is derivative of some of the philosophies mentioned by Matrixism particularly those of Aldous Huxley, the Baha’i Faith, the Bagavad Gita and The Bible all of which are mentioned in the Matrixism website. This sheds light on the Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix which is the title of the section. Harun Yahya book also does this and should not be removed for the same reason.71.215.128.75 09:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove it is a derivative (because that would mean that the Wachowskis had read this “Matrixism” and used it as a basis for their work) than you can keep it. Otherwise you are applying original research to the article. Your own words were “The Matrix is a derivative of some of the philosophies…”, which means if you can’t prove that it is, by any other means than “similar ideas”, than it is original research. To be clear, original research is not allowed. You would need the Wachowskis to have actually said it was a derivative, not your own deductive logic (or that of the website’s creator). I’m sorry, but Wikipedia is built on verifiability. Bignole 12:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

## Plot Synopsis

Just now it’s a bit long. It’s comprehensive, but wouldn’t it be better to provide a shorter, less detailed version that outlines the really key events in the story: the nature of The Matrix, Neo’s training and rescuing Morpheus, and him becoming the One? Sockatume 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bignole and I are doing one. Wiki-newbie 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As created by Bignole and additional edits by me:

The film begins with Trinity escaping from police and a group of Agents. Later, computer programmer Thomas A. Anderson, an internet hacker known as “Neo”, is searching for “the Matrix”. After a cryptic message on his computer, he travels to a nightclub where he meets Trinity. Neo believes that a hacker named Morpheus is the key to answering the question of “what is the Matrix?” The next morning, Neo receives a call from Morpheus. He informs Neo that he must leave his building, quickly and quietly, or he will be apprehended by several government-looking officials. Despite Morpheus’ guidance, Neo is apprehended by the Agents. Neo wakes up in his bed believing it all to be a dream. Morpheus calls and informs him there is a car waiting to take him to a secure place so they can meet face-to-face.

Morpheus explains that he has been searching for Neo his entire life, and informs him that the Matrix is what Neo considers to be reality. He offers Neo a choice to leave the Matrix (via a blue pill) or see the real world (a red pill). Neo accepts the red pill, and soon finds himself inside a liquid-filled chamber connected by several wires. As the connections are severed, he is flushed into a pool of waste water. Morpheus, in his ship the “Nebuchadnezzar”, rescues Neo. After Neo recuperates, Morpheus explains the truth about the Matrix to Neo. The actual year is approximately 2199. Early in the 21st century mankind created artificially intelligent machines, however war broke out. In a desperate attempt to cut off the machines’ supply of solar power, the sky was blacked out. The machines nevertheless emerged victorious, and turned humans into a new source of energy. Morpheus and Trinity are part of a group of free humans who “unplug” other humans from the Matrix and recruit them to their resistance against the machines. Morpheus believes that Neo is “the One”, a man with limitless control over the Matrix. He was prophesied by the Oracle to “hail the destruction of the Matrix, end the war, bring freedom to our people”.

On board the “Nebuchadnezzar”, Neo meets the rest of the crew, Apok, Switch, Mouse, Cypher, Tank, and Dozer. Neo undergoes training where he is digitally downloaded with knowledge inside the Matrix. Over a ten hour period, he learns several forms of martial arts. Morpheus tries to test Neo, and the two spar inside an environment similar to the Matrix. Morpheus uses this time to teach Neo that the rules of the Matrix can be bent, or even broken by mental effort. Through further training, Neo learns that injuries suffered inside the Matrix are reflected in the real world. He also learns that the Matrix is policed by Agents similar to those who arrested him. The Agents are sentient programs whose purpose is to eliminate any threats within the Matrix. They have the ability to possess anyone still plugged into the Matrix. Once Neo fully understands the true nature of the Matrix, the Agents will not be able to stop him.

Morpheus and his group enter the Matrix so Neo can meet the Oracle. During his private meeting with her, she reveals that Morpheus believes in Neo so blindly that he will sacrifice himself to save Neo’s life. Neo will have to choose between his life and that of Morpheus’. When the group attempts to exit the Matrix they are ambushed by several Agents. Morpheus is captured when he sacrifices himself to save Neo. Cypher is the first to exit the Matrix, and is soon revealed to be the saboteur of the group. Having struck a deal with the Agents, Cypher proceeds to unplug everyone while they are still inside the Matrix. Tank survives Cypher’s attack and kills him before he can unplug Neo and Trinity. Three Agents interrogate Morpheus, in an attempt to learn the access codes to the mainframe of Zion, the human’s last city. Neo and Trinity begin staging a rescue attempt for Morpheus. Arriving at the Agents’ headquarters, a massive gunfight ensues, leaving most of the lobby in ruins. On the roof, Neo shows more confidence in Morpheus’ belief when he dodges several bullets fired by an Agent. They use a helicopter to attack the interrogation room and rescue Morpheus. In an abandoned subway station, Morpheus and Trinity exit the Matrix. However, the phone being used to exit is destroyed by Agent Smith. Neo stands his ground, and the two erupt into combat. Neo flees the subway, after Agent Smith is hit by a train, and prepares to find another exit.

Tank attempts to guide him to the nearest exit as Sentinels (attack robots) locate the “Nebuchadnezzar’s” position in the real world. The crew’s only weapon is an electromagnetic pulse device that can only be used when no one is plugged into the Matrix. Tank guides Neo towards an “old exit”, but Smith is already waiting. He shoots Neo dead. As Trinity whispers to Neo that she is in love with him, his heart begins to beat. Within the Matrix he stands up; the Agents shoot at him, but he stops their bullets in mid-air. As they fall to the ground, Neo sees the artificial Matrix as lines of streaming green code: he finally becomes “the One”. Agent Smith makes one last attempt to physically attack him, but Neo effortlessly blocks his punches with one hand. He then kills Agent Smith and returns to the real world barely in time for the ship’s electromagnetic pulse to destroy the Sentinels. The denouement has him flying off into the air following a threat to the machines via the phone.

Wiki-newbie 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• One of the things we were trying for was to cut things that were really incidental in the film, like the implanting of the bug inside Neo. A lot of things don’t need graphic details since Wiki isn’t a substitution for watching a film, nor a promotional source for a film. Also, any “explaination of characters” was removed as that is what a “Cast” section is meant for. A development of a new cast section, one that follows the format of several Featured Articles is in the works. Bignole 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• The draft above is about 900 words, compared to ~1400 in the current version of the article. For comparison, the synopsis of the featured article Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is about 1000 words, and that summary of another sci-fi film, Blade Runner, is less than 600 words.
For this article, I think that the only part that requires a fairly full description is the sequence describing what the Matrix is and the rebels’ situation. Everything before that can be summed up in only a single paragraph, as below. What do you think? Is it necessary to resuce the early part of the film that much? I’ve also condensed the later paragraphs. In fact, I may add some bits of it to the article right now… —Nick RTalk 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• (…and I’ve now done just that. I’ve also altered the version below to reflect the changes I made in transferring it across.)–Nick RTalk 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Computer programmer Thomas Anderson leads a secret life as a hacker under the alias “Neo”. Dissatisfied with his mundane life, he wishes to learn the answer to the question: “What is the Matrix?” Cryptic messages appearing on his computer monitor and a nightmarish encounter with several sinister agents lead him to a group led by the mysterious Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), a man who claims to be able to show him the answer.
[Here the description of Morpheus’s revelations can be kept fairly similar to how they are at the moment, with a fair amount of condensing in places such as the outline of the training sequence and description of the Agents.]
The group enters the Matrix and takes Neo to the apartment of the Oracle, the woman who predicted the eventual emergence of the One. Puzzling Neo with her ability to predict his actions, she informs him that he is not the One, adding that Morpheus believes in Neo so blindly that he will sacrifice his life to save him.
Returning to the hacked telephone line which serves as a safe “exit” from the Matrix, the group is ambushed by Agents and police officers, and although most of them escape, Morpheus is captured. Cypher, is the first to exit the Matrix, but immediately attacks Tank and his brother Dozer, and one-by-one begins murdering the other crew members’ real-world bodies. Preferring his old life in the Matrix in ignorance of the real world’s hardships, he made a deal with the Agents to give them Morpheus in exchange for a permanent return to the Matrix. However, before he can murder Neo and Trinity, he is killed by the injured Tank.
Meanwhile, Morpheus has been imprisoned in a government building. The Agents attempt to gain information from him regarding access codes to the mainframe of Zion, the humans’ refuge deep underground. Neo and Trinity resolve to rescue Morpheus, and return to the Matrix, storming the building. Neo becomes more confident and familiar with manipulating the Matrix, ultimately dodging bullets fired at him by an Agent. They use a helicopter to eliminate the Agents and rescue Morpheus.
In an abandoned subway station, Morpheus and Trinity use a telephone to exit the Matrix, but before Neo can leave, the phone is destroyed by Agent Smith. The trapped Neo stands his ground and fights, eventually defeating Smith, but flees when the Agent quickly possesses another body. As he runs through the city pursued by the Agents, “Sentinel” machines converge on the Nebuchadnezzar’s position in the real world. Neo reaches an exit, but is shot dead by the waiting Agent Smith. Trinity whispers to Neo that she refuses to accept his death: the Oracle once informed her that she would fall in love with the One, and it is Neo she loves. She kisses him, and his heart beats again. Within the Matrix he stands up; the Agents’ shoot at him, but he raises his palm and stops their bullets in mid-air. Neo sees the Matrix as it really is, lines of streaming green code: he finally becomes “the One”. Agent Smith makes a final attempt to physically attack him, but Neo effortlessly blocks his punches with one hand, then plunges directly into Smith’s body. It ruptures and explodes, leaving Neo standing. The other two Agents flee, and Neo returns to the real world in time for the ship’s electromagnetic pulse weapon to destroy the Sentinels.
A short epilogue shows Neo back in the Matrix, making a telephone call promising that he will demonstrate to the people imprisoned in the Matrix that “anything is possible”. He hangs up the phone, looks up, and flies into the sky above the city.
• It isn’t a bad plot summary. I placed strikes through things that can be cut because they either don’t follow the NPOV, contain Original Research, or are just plain unnecessary. We don’t need to say what actor is in each role, that is why we have a cast section. We don’t need to explain what the Oracle told Trinity, because we aren’t explaining that Neo questioned her earlier, nor do we need a detail of how he finally kills Smith. I didn’t correct anything on the plot, so it would need to be restructured to conform to the striked out words. It also needs some copyediting, but that can be done later. Bignole 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
1. I’ve removed the actors’ names as requested. However, even with “cast” sections, the featured articles Casablanca (film) and Blade Runner use them, but the various Star Wars featured articles don’t. Is there a guideline about that?
2. I still haven’t condensed the first few paragraphs into one, though I definitely think it would be better like that. Any comments on that would be welcome.
3. I’m fairly happy with the descriptions of the exposition/training scenes. They increase the word count significantly, but the information conveyed in them applies to the entire franchise, and I think it’s better here than in the article The Matrix series.
4. Although the interrogation scene won’t be given much prominence in the plot summary, it is a significant event in the film, so I think one of those two adjectives should be kept to add a little emphasis – or maybe I just like those words. :)
5. I think that the destruction of Agent Smith should be mentioned. Again, he’s not given much prominence within the plot summary (he’s not even mentioned specifically until the subway fight, even though in the film he appears prominently several times before that), but he’s a significant character in the overall series, so IMO his fate in this film should be noted.–Nick RTalk 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick comment about the cast (as I’m unpacking from a 10 hour trip)…there isn’t really a guideline, but it becomes redundant to list their names in the plot, and then do it again in the cast section. The “destruction” of Smith, is fine to note, what I was saying is that we don’t need to explain exactly what Neo does. People can watch that for themselves. It’s details like those that I was trying to say “we can cut”, because they are observable details that someone watching can view for themselves, and not “plot details”. This goes for the “bug” thing in the interrogation. You’d have to write out exactly what the “bug” does before and after removal, because that is why he’s waking up with the nightmare. I think it’s easier to keep it simple since the “bug” really only consisted of a couple hours of “fictional universe time”. Bignole 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

## Important note—do not archive

This page comes under frequent attack from The Matrixism linkspamming vandal, who often operates under a set of dynamic IP addresses. Remedies include semi-protection and blocking. This vandal will try and argue for the legitimacy of this link on this talk page, but this is a long-settled issue.