Neo

**zeroone506**

Papergh0st wrote:

huh? that didn't need to "remain ambiguous", it needed to be explained better in a way that didn't suck and suggest creativity abandoned the scriptwriting office that day. "your connection extends from this world into the machine mainframe"

a) explains nothing that you can listen to and go, okay, they set up a mystery in the second film and now resolved it in a way thats logical and satifying and
b) is totally lame and probably took ten minutes or less to come up with.

That "explanation" wasn't lame or sucked, it was vague and lacked detail or elaboration. Which means certain aspects or details aren't covered, and basically the understanding of the thing isn't complete.

Maybe "ambiguous" is the wrong word, but anyway, it was *not* explained in the movies how Neo destroyed the Machines, could see them in this special way, or be transported to the simulation just like that.

There is nothing worse about this explanation than about "a Matrix in the Matrix", or anything else (if you'd care to elaborate what great ideas you've seen on forums =p) - it's the way and detail you present it with. The way it was presented in the movies was, by all means, not sufficient, and didn't seem final.

So you criticize it for being not entirely explained. I suppose you'd be more pleased if MxO would explain it some day, and even more pleased if you knew it were the Wachowskis who had this in mind while writing the screenplay, or something.
Why should the fact if Neo is dead or not remain ambiguous then? Otherwise, they'd make this mystery at the end of the movie, but would never care to answer it. Huh? Not good.

why not? the whole setup of the final film smacks of the ambiguity of jesus coming back or not, of king arthur coming back or not, of any other of a number of famous "verily, I shall return and kick some behind....maybe. so be good, puny mortals" individuals throughout history and myth. even the oracles "i suspect we will, someday" is reminiscent of the whole "we'll see king arthur return in englands darkest hour" thing.

thats such a potent thing. why ruin that potency and what it stands for, just so we can say we bring him back and then have him do some stuff in this game for whatever period of time this game runs for, then potentially bring his tale to a halt for a second time, presumably with a second "heroic matrix death / sacrifice / whatever" at the end of the life of the game?

First of all, let's not compare mythological and religious truths to *fiction* in this way.

If it was intended to be an empty belief, then it's one way.
If it was intended to hint towards a real story development, it's the other way.

I don't know anything about the future, and don't automatically dismiss one of these possibilities as bad because I don't know how they might or will turn out. That's all.

**Villemar_MxO**

Papergh0st wrote:

why not? the whole setup of the final film smacks of the ambiguity of jesus coming back or not, of king arthur coming back or not, of any other of a number of famous "verily, I shall return and kick some behind....maybe. so be good, puny mortals" individuals throughout history and myth. even the oracles "i suspect we will, someday" is reminiscent of the whole "we'll see king arthur return in englands darkest hour" thing.

thats such a potent thing. why ruin that potency and what it stands for, just so we can say we bring him back and then have him do some stuff in this game for whatever period of time this game runs for, then potentially bring his tale to a halt for a second time, presumably with a second "heroic matrix death / sacrifice / whatever" at the end of the life of the game?

Wow that's totally true....haven't thought of that before. Must be why the ambiguous death has so much potency and eloquence. I think it's time for me to re-read some Joseph Campbell. Actually IIRC he did speak about the Arthurian mythos in one of his many lectures, talked about how conquered peoples of various cultures around the world have a similar mythic figure that has left but may return one day.

Let Neo rest in Avalon.

Paperghost

zeroone506 wrote:

That "explanation" wasn't lame or sucked, it was vague and lacked detail or elaboration. Which means certain aspects or details aren't covered, and basically the understanding of the thing isn't complete.

Maybe "ambiguous" is the wrong word, but anyway, it was *not* explained in the movies how Neo destroyed the Machines, could see them in this special way, or be transported to the simulation just like that.

they presented you with some big mysteries in the second film with the promise of resolution in the third.

they clearly intended to "resolve" the mystery of the sentinels, because neo asked the oracle about it "tell me how I..." and she gave her final answer, which was indeed "your connection goes from this world back to the source"...and that was that. no further elaboration required, she didn't present her information as "vague" or with a hint of "this is sort of the full story, but not quite and I'm holding something back" - he turned up at the oracles place, demanded answers, and she filled him in.

there is no hint from the writers that we are supposed to accept this as anything other than "the explanation bit" of the film, or that she was holding something back, or that we weren't supposed to be satisfied with this explanation. maybe they didn't intend for these things to become as big an issue for the sequels as they did, but given that these are clear double yew tee eff moments in the film - heck, stopping the sentinels is one of the main cliffhangers of the second film - I can't believe its anything other than bad writing and poor judgment.

First of all, let's not compare mythological and religious truths to *fiction* in this way.

uh, why not?

how about if I view the tale of christ as fiction? isn't the popularisation of the arthur myth itself due to Geoffry of Monmouth writing historia regum britanniae, a work of fiction, without which we might not even have come to be aware of such tales?

so why are we not allowed to compare the tale of neo with the tales I mentioned? that seems faintly ludicrous when the matrix movies themselves are cadging everything from christ to arthur to buddhism and everything inbetween.

I don't know anything about the future, and don't automatically dismiss one of these possibilities as bad because I don't know how they might or will turn out. That's all.

that's fine, and I'm choosing to take the opposite stance. one isn't automatically more valid than the other, but it doesn't mean I can't lay out my thoughts on what I happen to think might (or could) go wrong if they go with the "lets bring Neo back" idea.

**Villemar_MxO**

Papergh0st wrote:

First of all, let's not compare mythological and religious truths to *fiction* in this way.

uh, why not?

Why not indeed. Good (stuff that lasts) fiction is a form of mythology (creative mythology). A myth is not a lie, but, like art, a rendering or reflection of truth. Subsequently, religion is the extension of myth through ritual.

Sorry to get all metaphysical here but its very late and I have Joseph Campbell on the brain.

**zeroone506**

Papergh0st wrote:

they presented you with some big mysteries in the second film with the promise of resolution in the third.

they clearly intended to "resolve" the mystery of the sentinels, because neo asked the oracle about it "tell me how I..." and she gave her final answer, which was indeed "your connection goes from this world back to the source"...and that was that. no further elaboration required, she didn't present her information as "vague" or with a hint of "this is sort of the full story, but not quite and I'm holding something back" - he turned up at the oracles place, demanded answers, and she filled him in.

there is no hint from the writers that we are supposed to accept this as anything other than "the explanation bit" of the film, or that she was holding something back, or that we weren't supposed to be satisfied with this explanation. maybe they didn't intend for these things to become as big an issue for the sequels as they did, but given that these are clear double yew tee eff moments in the film - heck, stopping the sentinels is one of the main cliffhangers of the second film - I can't believe its anything other than bad writing and poor judgment.

If the Wachowskis really said the final movie would answer all questions to full extent and in full detail, they either lied or failed. Or they were "razzing" SMILEY

If it was Joel Silver, the guy has a rather big, fat mouth - not that I hated him, but he praised the movies so hard, I wouldn't use him or poster announcements as valid arguments. Also SMILEY

I don't know what hints from the writers you want. The Oracle has been talking cryptically, "in riddles", all the time. Even now when you ask her a definite question, you won't get a clear answer.
It was the same in the movies, almost everywhere.
She has been "holding back" information or details all the time. From movie one until right here and now.

Maybe Neo had got used to it, or had understood her answer unlike the audience. Anyway, that answer was vague and insufficient. But it does explain the vage and general concept.
Either the Wachowskis wanted to leave it to interpretations, or to answer it at a later point. Or it was poor writing, if you insist.

uh, why not?

how about if I view the tale of christ as fiction? isn't the popularisation of the arthur myth itself due to Geoffry of Monmouth writing historia regum britanniae, a work of fiction, without which we might not even have come to be aware of such tales?

so why are we not allowed to compare the tale of neo with the tales I mentioned? that seems faintly ludicrous when the matrix movies themselves are cadging everything from christ to arthur to buddhism and everything inbetween.

Whether real historical events, imparted legends, fiction or simply belief, the point is that people more or less apply it to their real life, and the real world.

The notion of Arthur or Jesus returning is not that someone might write a sequel where this happens, but that is happens in the real.
Neo's return is all pure fiction and doesn't claim to be anything else. Everyone who expects Neo to return to their world is a fictional character.

So what's your point? That it's more exciting to wait for King Arthur than seeing him return? But seeing him return is a scenario beyond our reach, in the Matrix, it's not, it's a possible story twist.

Paperghost · 04/02/2007 08:21:39

zeroone506 wrote:

I don't know what hints from the writers you want. The Oracle has been talking cryptically, "in riddles", all the time. Even now when you ask her a definite question, you won't get a clear answer.
It was the same in the movies, almost everywhere.
She has been "holding back" information or details all the time. From movie one until right here and now.

Maybe Neo had got used to it, or had understood her answer unlike the audience. Anyway, that answer was vague and insufficient. But it does explain the vage and general concept.
Either the Wachowskis wanted to leave it to interpretations, or to answer it at a later point. Or it was poor writing, if you insist.

that scene is not really the oracle addressing Neo, its the writers addressing the audience, filling us in after waiting 2 hours or more for answers to questions that were set up as major plot points in the second film.

They did exactly the same thing with the architect in Reloaded, but in that case it works because it sets up a new plot thread (prophecy is false) and does a great (if initially head wrecking) job of explaining the ins and outs of what has happened so far, and what it might mean for the future.

If you're gonna leave your plot exposition with regards the meat of your movie to one extended stretch of dialogue, man, you better nail it and nail it good or your film will potentially fall to pieces. they did with that scene. they nailed it real good.

however, they made the mistake of going to the same well twice, and giving you a watered down version second time round.

the oracle scene in revolutions? ouch. you simply can't raise the audiences expectations in that way in the second film, then expect not to feel the heat by palming them off with a sucktacular "explanation". it will hurt the film. worse, it will potentially hurt the audience.

The notion of Arthur or Jesus returning is not that someone might write a sequel where this happens, but that is happens in the real.
Neo's return is all pure fiction and doesn't claim to be anything else. Everyone who expects Neo to return to their world is a fictional character.

...and the fictional Neo differs from the entirely fictional version of Arthur how?

The version of Arthur I'm referring to is the fictional version of Arthur, which is the version of Arthur that is referred to when talking about his "return". His supposed "return in England's darkest hour" is mentioned in the Arthurian Romances written in the middle ages - a work of fiction, referred to above.

the only people who will try and convince you he might some day return in the real world are people selling king arthur t-shirts and mugs to tourists at one of his supposed graves scattered around the country.

So I still don't see how I can't reference Neo in relation to non, partly (or wholly) fictional versions of fictional characters from a fictitious history - especially when the whole premise of the Neo character is arguably based on elements from all of those characters in the first place.

**Villemar_MxO**

Don't mean to stray too off topic here, but I found Joseph Campbell's Arthurian Tradition lecture and have upoaded it here:

http://www.divshare.com/download/326729-494

(mainly for Papergh0st but others might enjoy it too. It is an absolute delight to listen to. Where was this guy when I went to college?)

**GirlyGurl84**

ok u guys still dont get it, u are all arguing whether or not neo is dead.

ASSUME the following:

1. that is the real morpheus, not a fake anot a sim the real flesh and blood morpheus

2. Neo is in a "Coma" of sorts and the machines are holding him captive

3. Smith is still around somewhere some how

4. Stay away from the films and focus on the game it self

5. Consider that in 08 neo is placed inside the game as himself the way he was in the film and is a lvl 255 character / dev player like rarebit or someone like that.

**Villemar_MxO**

GirlyGurl84 wrote:

ok u guys still dont get it, u are all arguing whether or not neo is dead.

ASSUME the following:

1. that is the real morpheus, not a fake anot a sim the real flesh and blood morpheus
We just don't know this quite yet. Only time will tell.

2. Neo is in a "Coma" of sorts and the machines are holding him captive
The likelihood of this is probably high.

3. Smith is still around somewhere some how
No way. the devs imply this is not at all the case.

4. Stay away from the films and focus on the game it self
Well, there are some limitations. Any major story arc like the return of Neo would definitely have to get approval from the W Bros. first.

5. Consider that in 08 neo is placed inside the game as himself the way he was in the film and is a lvl 255 character / dev player like rarebit or someone like that.

It's not that this can't be done, we are just questioning the wisdom of bringing in a "deus ex machina" like this. Plus, I don't even know if SOE would have the legal right to use Keanu's image. And again, final veto power would be held by the W Bros.

Paperghost

GirlyGurl84 wrote:

ok u guys still dont get it, u are all arguing whether or not neo is dead.

ASSUME the following:

1. that is the real morpheus, not a fake anot a sim the real flesh and blood morpheus

2. Neo is in a "Coma" of sorts and the machines are holding him captive

3. Smith is still around somewhere some how

4. Stay away from the films and focus on the game it self

5. Consider that in 08 neo is placed inside the game as himself the way he was in the film and is a lvl 255 character / dev player like rarebit or someone like that.

...wait, you post a thread asking for people to discuss the possibility of Neo returning (with the obvious requirement that people will actually discuss whether they think he's alive or not, what it means to both the resolution of the films and the continuation of the story and lots of other things besides), then command everyone to assume x, y and z to fit your particular criteria for how you expect the discussion to go?

you might as well change the title of the thread to "neo is returning, isn't he"? and have us all post:

"yes".

Also, Big_V - thanks for the link SMILEY

**Villemar_MxO**

Papergh0st wrote:

Also, Big_V - thanks for the link

My pleasure SMILEY PM me sometime and tell me what you think SMILEY

-Villemar

**zeroone506** · 04/03/2007 01:31:02

GirlyGurl84 wrote:

ok u guys still dont get it, u are all arguing whether or not neo is dead.

What do I not get, I presented you the facts as they are in my first post here.

ASSUME the following:
as opposed to assuming other possibilities?

1. that is the real morpheus, not a fake anot a sim the real flesh and blood morpheus
ok

2. Neo is in a "Coma" of sorts and the machines are holding him captive
plausible; at least he was at the end of "Revolutions", according to this

3. Smith is still around somewhere some how
His code infection is still around, even without the Anniversary... other than that, speculation

4. Stay away from the films and focus on the game it self
WT... what? Why should I disregard the movies?

5. Consider that in 08 neo is placed inside the game as himself the way he was in the film and is a lvl 255 character / dev player like rarebit or someone like that.
your point?

Lol, what a funny post.

**zeroone506**

Papergh0st wrote:

that scene is not really the oracle addressing Neo, its the writers addressing the audience, filling us in after waiting 2 hours or more for answers to questions that were set up as major plot points in the second film.

They did exactly the same thing with the architect in Reloaded, but in that case it works because it sets up a new plot thread (prophecy is false) and does a great (if initially head wrecking) job of explaining the ins and outs of what has happened so far, and what it might mean for the future.

If you're gonna leave your plot exposition with regards the meat of your movie to one extended stretch of dialogue, man, you better nail it and nail it good or your film will potentially fall to pieces. they did with that scene. they nailed it real good.

however, they made the mistake of going to the same well twice, and giving you a watered down version second time round.

the oracle scene in revolutions? ouch. you simply can't raise the audiences expectations in that way in the second film, then expect not to feel the heat by palming them off with a sucktacular "explanation". it will hurt the film. worse, it will potentially hurt the audience.

Like with every explanation scene in every piece of fiction, it's both the writers addressing the audience and the explaining character addressing the noob character.
It's two sides of the same coin, jeez.

But as you've seen in the Matrix, and in lots of other stories with twists, such explanations can be misleading, or insufficient. So, assuming the writers happen not to be failing at what they're doing, they're addressing the audience to mislead them, or make them speculate or interpret. That's what I'm seeing in that Oracle scene.

From inside the fictional world, it has to make sense why this character offers an incomplete or false explanation. I'd say it makes "sorta" sense with the Oracle, since she's always so cryptical anyway, and her true intentions are somewhat concealed.

So once again, the explanation in Revolutions was insufficient and incomplete, nothing else.

...and the fictional Neo differs from the entirely fictional version of Arthur how?

The version of Arthur I'm referring to is the fictional version of Arthur, which is the version of Arthur that is referred to when talking about his "return". His supposed "return in England's darkest hour" is mentioned in the Arthurian Romances written in the middle ages - a work of fiction, referred to above.

the only people who will try and convince you he might some day return in the real world are people selling king arthur t-shirts and mugs to tourists at one of his supposed graves scattered around the country.

So I still don't see how I can't reference Neo in relation to non, partly (or wholly) fictional versions of fictional characters from a fictitious history - especially when the whole premise of the Neo character is arguably based on elements from all of those characters in the first place.

It's not really about people *believing* that Arthur will really return, it's that the mythology somewhat claims it to be real, and thus his return to be really imminent, and people perceive it on an accordig level.

But meh, I don't know much about that. You also brought up Jesus. That's definitely not fiction as it claims to state real events in the past and future. If Arthur's a standard novel, then let's forget about Arthur. Or the other way round, actually SMILEY

Paperghost · 04/03/2007 07:11:15

zeroone506 wrote:

Like with every explanation scene in every piece of fiction, it's both the writers addressing the audience and the explaining character addressing the noob character.
It's two sides of the same coin, jeez.

yeah, but theres two very different ways of doing this kind of thing in a film script. you can either tease it out in bits and pieces, threaded gently throughout the film - a less jarring approach, and seems less like the film makers literally stepping out of the confines of the screen to waffle at you for twenty minutes.

OR...you go with the approach often favoured by action / adventure films, where it seems like the makers wanted to hurl lots of action at you then hurriedly "justify" it near the end, with a part where everything stops and some talking heads appear and spout huge chunks of dialogue at you. this is less about meaningful, organically generated discussion between believable characters than it is a signal for you to go outside for a smoke while the scriptwriters practically shatter the fourth wall in order to ram page after page of jibberish at you.

The only real difference between the second method listed above and the oracle scene in revolutions is that, rather than bombard you with talk, they seemingly stripped it all out and left only the bare bones in the form of the oracles dreadful "explanation".

It's not really about people *believing* that Arthur will really return, it's that the mythology somewhat claims it to be real, and thus his return to be really imminent, and people perceive it on an accordig level.

yeah, but its still mythology that was popularised and elaborated upon (and by elaborated, I do of course mean "completely made up" ) by a work of fiction, and the notion of Arthur "returning" - (the arthur that you or I would recognise from the books, defending camelot and hunting down holy grails and smacking around Mordred with Merlin in tow) - is also down to that fiction.

But meh, I don't know much about that. You also brought up Jesus. That's definitely not fiction as it claims to state real events in the past and future.

how is the story of jesus "definitely not fiction"? the bible can claim whatever it wants, you can't simply say the "mythical" (ie super magic Jesus with feedings for forty thousand and freaking people out with his ghostly appearances after his resurrection) version of Jesus is "definitely not fiction". if i write a book right now and "claim to state real events in the future", is that classed as "definitely not fiction" as well?

at any rate, you still haven't explained why I can't compare Neo to anyone previously mentioned.

**zeroone506** · 04/04/2007 05:31:18

First part:

Maybe, but I find all these schemes you're talking about kind of far-fetched, and not necessary here.

Why don't I go out and smoke? First, I'm to l33t for smoking. Second, because when I watch an action movie, I am usually interested in the plot, especially if it's a movie like the Matrix where the plot is more than an excuse for an action sequence filled piece of popcorn cinema.

Why carry away from the point? The Architect scene was a long dialogue. The Oracle scene was a short dialogue. The explanation by the Oracle was incomplete, simple as that. Why complicate it?

Second part:

Again, the question is not on what basis it has been written, but where it is applied.
Christians believe that the events and prophecies in the Gospel are real and happened/will happen in the real world, not for someone to write a book about the second coming;
Matrix fans don't think Neo will come to them, but they wait for someone to write about it, how it happens in a world that isn't even supposed to be ours.

EDIT: I brought this up because you compared the incertainty about Neo to the incertainty about Arthur and Jesus. As long as there is any sort of tension about them really returning to our world, even if the people don't take it so seriously, it'll be broken by anyone who writes a sequel about them returning, because then it'll be gone and there won't be any reason to assume these events will occur in the real, because it was supposed to happen in a book (so to speak).

There is no real world element about the Matrix or Neo. Anything that's gonna happen there happens in a fictional world, and the question of Neo returning or not is simply another question of twist/revelation/direction change.