Path of Neo Trailer

[Blzer]

Re: Path of Neo Trailer

There's some new Hands-On stuff at Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/thematrixthepathofneo/index.html

Granted, it's about 15 days old, but this hasn't been brought up yet.

Check out the interview, also. There aren't any new clips outside what the trailer gave us, but oh well.

[Mrcabone]

Re: Path of Neo Trailer

just watched the trailer for the first time ,I'm gonna keep an eye out for this game ,looks sick.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Path of Neo Trailer

Yes Neo I did ask. I understand everything that you have written (quite a good read) However, here is what I initially believed happened with the matrix. The first movie was intended to stand alone, (I don't know if this movie was an adaptation from some other source) based on the success of the first matrix, the others were created in hindsight rather than foresight, that is why I say it was disjointed. Was neo a code or was he a human being? Which came first? I mean we are given the premise that the humans created the machines therefore it would seem that the human existence takes precedent over the code existence. I was thinking that eventually every human being had to be unplugged because the core of human existence would have to be "plug free" because the soul of men exists out side of the code of the matrix because one begat the other. As it stands, how could every human choose to remain plugged in if in fact they were never unplugged. Cipher was unplugged and made a choice, I just thought that everyone else should have been unplugged. The matrix only exists while everyone is plugged into it, right? And as we are told they are plugged in to be drained by the computers.

Those things aside, you give a very insightful explanation of the matrix trilogy as it went forward from its initial premise. Again, that was very good.

I saw your post after a long time as you can see, re: the Matrix trilogy and I think you're missing the point, so I'll just post my reply here:


Neo is actually a human, BUT he is part of a "divine plan", by both the unnamed God and the Oracle and the Architect. As is Smith. In the digital world, Neo and Smith were sort of engineered with a code (this is their "digital" souls) implanted in each of them which was supposed to somehow grow in correspondence with their powers (this is my rough explanation of it). Both the Architect and Oracle implanted some code in Neo and Smith to bring about conflict in the Matrix, to stimulate change since the Matrix is essentially static (sort of like heaven) and if it remains too static for too long people will automatically reject the Matrix. The code that each would carry would be attracted to the other carrier's code as each would seek to combine to "balance out the equation". This explains why Neo suddenly has the impulse to jump into Smith at the end of the first movie and drop his ego in (it activates Smith's code, and "enlightens" him, giving him more power). It also explains why Smith is so different from the other agents in the first movie.

Smith does call the Oracle "Mother" in Revolutions which is also explained by his awareness that she and the Architect are manipulating him and Neo and that they (Neo and Smith) are bound by fate to do whatever they're doing. This is a case where the truly divine plan and the digitally divine plan are actually one and the same, though the truly divine plan is rather unseen and unspoken of.

Now, your idea that humans take precedence over the machines is precisely what the Wachowskis refute in the trilogy. the Machines are now as valid a species as humans are. And in the Animatrix it shows that humans were the bad guys in the beginning by continuing to exercise dominance over the machines forcing them into slavery even though they now have minds of their own. They are really "children" to humans, and thus the machines actually regard humans as their "Gods". It is implicit in the trilogy of the tendency for the Creation (like humans and machines) to become more like the Creator (God or humans) so the machines used the whole mining humans for energy as an excuse more than anything else just in order to study humanity and become more like them.

In anycase at the end of Revolutions, the choice was given back to humans by the form of them accepting the programming or rejecting it. those who rejected it would be free to leave, without any opposition by the machines, while those who accepted it would still be in the matrix. If everyone were unplugged, many would die from shock, or want to simply get plugged back in since the Zion reality is VERY unpleasant. It is actually still in the Iron Age or age of ignorance like where the Matrix was when Neo first became Neo while the Matrix has entered the Golden Age.

See, humans STILL live in caves, still see machines as different from them. What the trilogy does is show how the machines and humans take a small step forward, but this is just a dot on the timeline towards becoming independent species and fully recognizing the validity of each other. It just doesn't all happen at the end of Revolutions. Humanity and machinekind took a small step forward at the end of Revolutions, but they didn't resolve their issues. In the end, it's still cycles in cycles in cycles. We're seeing the Matrix's reset of a great cycle, not Zion's, which comes after possibly a hundred thousand of Matrix great cycles (Iron Ages transitioning into golden Ages).

By the way, the fact that Neo sees machines as pure light and that machines have learned to love (Rama Kandra and Kamala producing Sati) are ways the Wachowskis refute the idea that machines are "inferior" to humans.

As far as the Matrix being meant to be a standalone, yeah it was. And if it were, I wouldn't have been too impressed with it, as the philosophical elements were hardly fleshed out. However, if you look at the sequels and look back at the original, a lot of the things HINTED in the original come to full realization at the end of Revolutions. The themes are consistent from start to finish, and so is the philosophy presented. I'll admit the original was a far better movie as far as drama is concerned (also the most simplistic and least fleshed out). However, I contend the sequels are not necessarily disjointed as they are much more philosophically fleshed out and the story becomes more servile to the philosophy than vice versa.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Path of Neo Trailer

Hey dude, I have a question for you, hopefully it won't require you to write a whole bunch (for your sake, not mine). Why did the Oracle have to change appearances? I'm hoping this isn't just a simple answer like the original Oracle didn't want to do the third movie, so they had to recast her part...

Well, they did have to recast her part because the original Oracle actress died due to complications of diabetes I believe.

I think the Wachowski Bros. didn't want to take the plot turn they had planned when she was alive, but circumstances kind of forced them to do it anyhow (or so they say).

However, the "rebirth" of the Oracle does have significance as far as the philosophy and movies are concerned. She is different yet the same. Different in form, but still same in essence. As she says "Some bits you lose, some bits you keep". This is what essentially happens with Neo's prior incarnations (different in form, less wise but gets progressively wiser and more independent then his predecessors), and it also reinforces that everything is again, a cycle.

[NovaStar]

Re: Path of Neo Trailer

I saw your post after a long time as you can see, re: the Matrix trilogy and I think you're missing the point, so I'll just post my reply here:


Neo is actually a human, BUT he is part of a "divine plan", by both the unnamed God and the Oracle and the Architect. As is Smith. In the digital world, Neo and Smith were sort of engineered with a code (this is their "digital" souls) implanted in each of them which was supposed to somehow grow in correspondence with their powers (this is my rough explanation of it). Both the Architect and Oracle implanted some code in Neo and Smith to bring about conflict in the Matrix, to stimulate change since the Matrix is essentially static (sort of like heaven) and if it remains too static for too long people will automatically reject the Matrix. The code that each would carry would be attracted to the other carrier's code as each would seek to combine to "balance out the equation". This explains why Neo suddenly has the impulse to jump into Smith at the end of the first movie and drop his ego in (it activates Smith's code, and "enlightens" him, giving him more power). It also explains why Smith is so different from the other agents in the first movie.

Smith does call the Oracle "Mother" in Revolutions which is also explained by his awareness that she and the Architect are manipulating him and Neo and that they (Neo and Smith) are bound by fate to do whatever they're doing. This is a case where the truly divine plan and the digitally divine plan are actually one and the same, though the truly divine plan is rather unseen and unspoken of.

Now, your idea that humans take precedence over the machines is precisely what the Wachowskis refute in the trilogy. the Machines are now as valid a species as humans are. And in the Animatrix it shows that humans were the bad guys in the beginning by continuing to exercise dominance over the machines forcing them into slavery even though they now have minds of their own. They are really "children" to humans, and thus the machines actually regard humans as their "Gods". It is implicit in the trilogy of the tendency for the Creation (like humans and machines) to become more like the Creator (God or humans) so the machines used the whole mining humans for energy as an excuse more than anything else just in order to study humanity and become more like them.

In anycase at the end of Revolutions, the choice was given back to humans by the form of them accepting the programming or rejecting it. those who rejected it would be free to leave, without any opposition by the machines, while those who accepted it would still be in the matrix. If everyone were unplugged, many would die from shock, or want to simply get plugged back in since the Zion reality is VERY unpleasant. It is actually still in the Iron Age or age of ignorance like where the Matrix was when Neo first became Neo while the Matrix has entered the Golden Age.

See, humans STILL live in caves, still see machines as different from them. What the trilogy does is show how the machines and humans take a small step forward, but this is just a dot on the timeline towards becoming independent species and fully recognizing the validity of each other. It just doesn't all happen at the end of Revolutions. Humanity and machinekind took a small step forward at the end of Revolutions, but they didn't resolve their issues. In the end, it's still cycles in cycles in cycles. We're seeing the Matrix's reset of a great cycle, not Zion's, which comes after possibly a hundred thousand of Matrix great cycles (Iron Ages transitioning into golden Ages).

By the way, the fact that Neo sees machines as pure light and that machines have learned to love (Rama Kandra and Kamala producing Sati) are ways the Wachowskis refute the idea that machines are "inferior" to humans.

As far as the Matrix being meant to be a standalone, yeah it was. And if it were, I wouldn't have been too impressed with it, as the philosophical elements were hardly fleshed out. However, if you look at the sequels and look back at the original, a lot of the things HINTED in the original come to full realization at the end of Revolutions. The themes are consistent from start to finish, and so is the philosophy presented. I'll admit the original was a far better movie as far as drama is concerned (also the most simplistic and least fleshed out). However, I contend the sequels are not necessarily disjointed as they are much more philosophically fleshed out and the story becomes more servile to the philosophy than vice versa.

What's up Neo. Yeah, I had forgotten I even responded in this thread. Ok, let me get my head together here. Now, I fully understand your explanation from the secon movie on, it is quite obvious that the producers made the second movie with the third in mind, with all of the eastern philosophies intact. However, the first movie is'nt dealing so much with the eastern philosophies and love as the x factor in determing the evolution of machine and man but rather I believe focuses on choice. Choice or will is the ultimate separating factor from matrix code and man mind. This is why I say the first was disjointed from the other two. Choice or will can't be hard coded nor can a man (Neo) pass choice or will to a computer, nor can code mutate to adopt a mechanism that allows it to even simulate choice or will. To me, the machines were created by man (will), with a digital soul (code) the first trumps the second. The second, deals with probality and outcome, that which will happen based upon formula and factors. The first deals with that which is immeasurable, undefinable, unmappable. The machines can never be equal because they can never have will, they are slaves to code, man enlightened is a slave to nothing. Computers can't be enlightened, because enlightenement comes from a source higher than that which it acts upon. The architect and oracle are not higher than the matrix but rather a part of it.
I hope I am clear in what I am attempting to say, if not, I am sure we will work it out through further posts.

I would definitely say that the first movie was definitely good, I liked the second better. But, I feel that the first movies' philosophy doesn't mix well with the First. Clearly stated, I see the first movie dealing with a more christian philosophy, while the other two are definitely in line with what you so eloquently stated in your posts above.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Path of Neo Trailer

Now, I fully understand your explanation from the secon movie on, it is quite obvious that the producers made the second movie with the third in mind, with all of the eastern philosophies intact.

The Wachowskis made all three movies with eastern philosophy in mind, particularly Hinduism, as the Wachowskis, I read somewhere, even admitted. Also, there is actually some controversy regarding whether they were the original creators of the Matrix movie, as there was a similar script floating around written by a woman who sued the Wachowskis for plagiarism. The script was titled the Third Eye which further lends credence to the idea that the first movie was always intended to be Eastern in thought, as the third eye is the mystical mechanism of enlightenment for Hindus and Buddhists.

In any case, the Wachowskis simply chose to tell the Matrix trilogy through mostly Christian symbols. However, that is not to say they didn't use Christian PHILOSOPHY whatsoever. They did, but that Christian philosophy is more Gnostic than traditional interpretations, the Gnostic one being more in line with Hindu and Buddhist thought. Neither the first, second, nor third movies actually clash with each other. Moreso, there's a considerable progression from simple ideas to a deeper exploration of those ideas as the trilogy goes along, and the viewer parallels Neo in perspective since we get this new information just like Neo does (aside from the Animatrix release, which should be considered canon as Second Renaissance parts One and Two are the "prequel" to the original the Wachowskis had always intended).

However, the first movie isn't dealing so much with the eastern philosophies and love as the x factor in determing the evolution of machine and man but rather I believe focuses on choice. Choice or will is the ultimate separating factor from matrix code and man mind.

The Bhagavad-Gita was a huge influence in the original movie, so no, you are wrong that the first movie isn't Eastern in thought as well, though it's presented in a Christ allegory.


In any case, you are also wrong to assume love is an eastern philosophical concept, it's a universal one, and love never really comes in as an actual factor until near the end of Reloaded/beginning of Revolutions. Love is actually considered to be a symptom of free will and choice, it is irrational, illogical. There is a paradox here, that is unsaid but actually knowingly introduced in the first movie as well by the way. But I digress, and come to the trilogy's idea of choice and free will as the distinctive separation between man and machine, as a discriminant in determing if a species is viable or not, which is contemplated all the way to the end. The themes are consistent from beginning to end, the nature of free will is consistently contemplated upon. Now, this contemplation is by the CHARACTERS only, not the producers, who have already drawn their conclusions about free will and such. The characters' notions of free will and fate evolve as the trilogy progresses. It seems you are making the mistake that just because the first movie says one thing, and the other two say differently, that the other two don't mesh with the first. Not the case at all, as the ideas are teased out and further explored and changed as new facts about their situation come to light.


However, you also have to understand that the first movie doesn't actually advocate that humans have free will either. In fact, humans DON'T have free will because they do not have understanding of the influences around them. In the first movie it seems that they do, simply because some of them reject the hard-wired programming of the Matrix, like Morpheus, Trinity and Neo. There is a paradox in here however. You have to listen to Morpheus's words, as they are quite telling of a deeper complication that goes unexplored in the original but is fleshed out in the sequels, and it goes unexplored because they all stagnate in their progression towards enlightenment, Neo included until the end of Reloaded where the truth is revealed. Morpheus asks Neo if he believes in "Fate", which Neo answers "No" to "because he doesn't like the idea of someone or something having a say in what he does" (paraphrased of course). Morpheus agrees with him, and that is primarily the reason why he rejected the Matrix programming. But wait! He's now following a "Prophecy" foretold by the "Oracle", and that he believes Neo is the One who can lead the resurgence of man as it was "foretold". Now, that seems like a contradiction doesn't it? A man who rejects being told what to do, and justifies that existence as false, ends up following instructions by someone else, and believes in a path laid out for everyone. So he rejects Fate because he believes in another Fate! We find out the error of his ways at the end of Reloaded, however, and we see how the machines have manipulated humans by their own calculations of what humans do, because they are bound by emotions, just like machines are bound by code (a reason why emotions are actually considered to be visible to the machines the same way Neo can see machine code, as established in Reloaded and Revolutions) However, in Reloaded you find out that they were mere patsies, that they were controlled and their actions were so predictable just like a machine's because they have FEELINGS and EMOTIONS which are analogous to the hard code of the machines. Reloaded states this many times, that humans are a predictable lot, they think they have free will, but all they are, are captives to their emotions and their actions are incredibly predictable. Only at the end of Reloaded, where Neo rejects preserving the Matrix do we see a break from the path (and again, this too can be argued as Neo is pretty much still guided although more subtly this time around by the Oracle and Architect). Neo's not truly "free" until he's actually dead, and outside of the realms of cause and effect. Death = enlightenment in the Matrix trilogy, since God is unseen and unnamed, although a presence that is implicit in the trilogy, and a refuge for Neo at the end.

This is why I say the first was disjointed from the other two. Choice or will can't be hard coded nor can a man (Neo) pass choice or will to a computer, nor can code mutate to adopt a mechanism that allows it to even simulate choice or will. To me, the machines were created by man (will), with a digital soul (code) the first trumps the second. The second, deals with probality and outcome, that which will happen based upon formula and factors. The first deals with that which is immeasurable, undefinable, unmappable. The machines can never be equal because they can never have will, they are slaves to code, man enlightened is a slave to nothing.

Your point is already refuted, I believe, as the original movie while leaving this unsaid, left it implicit that the so-called choice or will is nothing but delusion, and humans too are slave to their own version of hard code that machines are: their feelings and emotions. This is made clear in the sequels. Mankind is never FULLY free until death/merging into the singular entity known as God. Matrix and Zion are worlds in the realms of cause and effect, because there are entities other than yourself (or so perceived at least). It is when you realize that you and everyone else is a part of a whole, and transcend duality is when you are "enlightened". And even then, it's a matter of relative terms. You are not truly beyond cause and effect until death, never truly free, always a slave to something, until Death. Until then your role may be minimized in the whole cause and effect relationship but it is never gone. And the entire trilogy deals with what is undefinable, the intangible aspect of a soul. It just comes to the conclusion that nothing is, of course in an implicit way. There are no absolutes in the realm of duality, merely relative terms, and that's it.

Also, "love" IS addressed in the original movie (though it doesn't become clear as to its purpose until Reloaded and Revolutions), by the Oracle playing matchmaker to Neo and Trinity. Trinity falls in love with Neo because the Oracle plants this suggestion. Neo falls in love with Trinity as well because the Oracle plants this suggestion and Trinity is receptive to it. Love is "hard coded". Love is addressed somewhere in the trilogy, I forget at which point in particular as a symptom of free will because it is so irrational and illogical, maybe it is again implicit. Yet, this is clearly a perception that is unjustified as machines and code have been known to fall in love (Merovingian and Persephone), (Rama Kandra and Kamala). By the way, Rama Kandra is Neo's divine counterpart, working on the behalf of machines to cause them to progress (outside of the influence of the Matrix really, though the Oracle does guide him to meet Neo) while Neo is responsible for the progression/salvation of humans. The Blink of Vishnu is implicitly in effect in the trilogy.

Computers can't be enlightened, because enlightenement comes from a source higher than that which it acts upon. The architect and oracle are not higher than the matrix but rather a part of it.
I hope I am clear in what I am attempting to say, if not, I am sure we will work it out through further posts.

Is this your own contention? Because if it is, it comes outside of what the Wachowskis feel, and outside of the movies. Your own opinion of this is moot, although in Hinduism, the source of enlightenment is God, but God lives within you and everything else in the Universe. God and his creation are not separate. Every rock, every pebble has consciousness, so it is no logical leap for a Hindu to say that a machine has consciousness. This also makes it possible for the paradox that the Oracle, Architect and the Merovingian, although a part of the Matrix, are enlightened because of the Source and their connections to it. The Source is the Hindu analog for Brahman, Vishnu, Jehovah, Yaweh, Allah, or whatever you want to call God.

I would definitely say that the first movie was definitely good, I liked the second better. But, I feel that the first movies' philosophy doesn't mix well with the First. Clearly stated, I see the first movie dealing with a more christian philosophy, while the other two are definitely in line with what you so eloquently stated in your posts above.

Actually, you are incorrect. The first movie is just as Eastern in thought as the latter two. On the surface, yes it follows the Christ parallel. but so does Revolutions with Neo's positioning of himself as upon a cross when a sentinel goes right through him and stuff. The first movie deals very much in the Bhagavad-Gita, again a Hindu scripture, and it does deal in Christianity as well. But not the traditional Christianity you're familiar with, it's the more Gnostic form of Christianity which is much more closely in line with Hinduism and Buddhism. The first movie does establish the whole Father Son Holy Spirit trinity, with Neo being the Son, Trinity the Holy Spirit, and Morpheus as the Father (although I think it's a pretty weak association). Morpheus is really representative at the time of Krishna or John the Baptist, Neo as Jesus Christ or Arjuna, and Trinity as Holy Spirit (this actually stays constant, she is Holy Spirit, but the Hindu counterpart is also consistent, as she is also Shakti, the power responsible for giving enlightenment).

Have you seen the Animatrix, by the way?

My explanation of the trilogy is consistent from first movie to last. Not only from Reloaded onwards, but inclusive of the entire thing. And you cannot discard the Animatrix from this, as it is very much part of the mythos as the Wachowskis introduced the background of the Matrix through Second Renaissance, parts 1 and 2. Those are the key episodes in the Animatrix which are meant to show that the machines DID become independent of their "masters", the humans. They became independent thinkers, and had their own ideas and identified themselves as a viable species seeking to coexist with humans.


That is the whole point of A.I., or artificial intelligence. It may be artificial because humans made them, but who made the humans? God. And God imbues humans with consciousness, from which humans imbue machines with consciousness. Humans become the Gods to the machines, as humans are subjects of God themselves, which is a key philosophical point/parallel between humans and machines. Man strives to achieve Godhood by emulating divine qualities, while machines trive to acheive Godhood by simulating human qualities. Both are subjects of God, both are products of God, and thus have equal claim to life (implicitly argued in the trilogy of course). God is responsible for making both humans and machines, as humans are mere instruments of God's will. Just because humans created the machines, doesn't mean that their existence is higher than the machines. And this is definitely what the trilogy is saying. Although yes, in the first movie, the machines are seen as evil and devoid of soul or what makes a human, human, but this is due purely to perception issues and misinformation or lack of information more than anything else. This actually continues throughout Reloaded and into Revolutions (again, this idea is not simply introduced for Eastern philosophical reasons) where the idea machines can't have equal claim to humans is subverted by the introduction of two machines in love who birthed a program out of love.



In any case, when you say that machines can't have free will hardcoded, or that man can't pass on free will and such, the Matrix trilogy refutes this as its contention is there is no such thing as free will or Absolute free will, until death. Both humans and machines are bound by their own sort of programming, humans with their feelings, machines with their code. And each one is representative of the other as the sequels clearly indicate.