Matrix Revolutions? (SPOILER ALERT)

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hey all:

I just saw Revolutions yesterday evening. It was
entertaining, since it was a Matrix movie, but it
definately did not "explain it all". I can appreciate
leaving it open ended, but the bottom line is that it
doesn't explain barely *anything*. I mean, did
anybody notice that right before Agent Smith "took
over" the Oracle he called her "mom"? What was that
about? What is the rationale for his ability to exert
influence on the machines in the "real" world, or his
ability to remain "plugged in" to the Matrix? How did
that little indian girl "create" the really beautiful
sunrise at the end of the movie?

Yes, I can appreciate the spiritual parallels, but the
point of the Matrix was to provide a science fiction
metaphor for deeper spiritual message. There's no
explanation nor depth to the story or science, though.
I admire a storyteller's use of ommission for effect,
but they built this up as the movie that would
explain, and all it did was push the parable. I
dunno, us science fiction buffs needed a little more.

Personally I think they made the Matrix movies
(especially the last two) entirely too metaphorical.
It really harmed the script, plot, and effect of the
movies by trying to "make a point" instead of telling
a compelling and believable story. Every time I see
the 2nd film I like it less - it's such a hack. It's
too bad because the concept is awesome but they try to
work in all this metaphor for spiritual matters and
they don't do it very well. Plus the dialogue and
diction absolutely sucks a la Star Wars.

I appreciate the insight you've provided into the
deeper symbology of the movies, Gary, but I'm curious:
was anybody else dissappointed in the last two films?
Not for their "message" but for their lack of
completeness *as films*? Like I said, it's too bad
because the concept was really good.

I dunno, I've done so much speculation on the meaning
of the Matrix assuming that the Wachowskis would make
it a profound movie... it seems like a waste of time
since it's unlikely to be that profound, regardless of
what potential the Matrix concept contains.

Sorry if this brings you down! :-)

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Seek Up]

Hi JW!


>I mean, did
>anybody notice that right before Agent Smith "took
>over" the Oracle he called her "mom"? What was that
>about?



I didn't think about it but perhaps the Architect and the Oracle are some type
of father/mother archetype? I do remember that the Oracle describes the
Architect as the one who likes and needs balance, who sees all as a workable
equation with variables needing only solutions... and that her role was to
"unbalance" things... Creation and Creator? The North and the South pole of the
energy system? Shiva and Shakti? Maybe roles like Neo/Agent Smith are birthed
through the possibility of free choice which the Oracle helps to engender or
make possible at all? Thus, Smith would call her mom. Just some thoughts.



>What is the rationale for his ability to exert
>influence on the machines in the "real" world, or his
>ability to remain "plugged in" to the Matrix?



In a creation of Oneness, there are no boundaries, right? Neo does ask the
Oracle why he was able to disable the machines in the ?real? world and she says
that he tapped into the Source... basically channeling that power that he
touched into. Though, she says, he should have perished in that effort, it
apparently was not his time to die.



It might be that the Matrix was just a giant symbol for the dream of personality
that we are all awakening from. Six billion or so Ego's who all believe in the
validity of their own, separated and imprisoned existence. Believe in it so
much, that most would die to defend it. Ego, ego, ego. Vis a vis. Ergo.



In the beginning and all the way up till the third movie, Neo's entrance and
exit into the computer driven world is through some technical means, like
plugging in. Once he begins to understand/ become aware of Oneness even more
deeply, he realizes that there are no true boundaries and can move between the
worlds. I feel a Ra coming on...



"The activation, while in yellow-ray, of violet-ray intelligent infinity is a
passport to the next octave of experience. There are adepts who have penetrated
many, many of the energy centers and several of the true colors. This must be
done with utmost care while in the physical body for as we noted when speaking
of the dangers of linking red/orange/yellow circuitry with true color blue
circuitry the potential for disarrangement of the mind/body/spirit complex is
great. However, the entity who penetrates intelligent infinity is basically
capable of walking the universe with unfettered tread."



If you see it in terms of his awakening from the planetary dream, it works well
too, seeing what the "real" world that he awakens to, looks like. He opens his
eyes to a world that really makes you question, "Why did i not take the blue
pill?" In my own process of unfoldment, the dream that i have awakened and am
awakening from, hasn't led me into a realm of sunshine and roses, let me tell
you. Since I first ingested the red pill in 98, I have only become more
sensitive to and aware of my own pain and the world's. Despite the vistas that I
have seen as a being trying to live life consciously, my own inner world has not
looked too unlike that of the "real" world in the Matrix. Sometimes so painfully
so that I do wonder, "Is ignorance truly bliss?"



When he does get his first real glimpse of the darkness of 3d life outside of
the box, the only way he knows that there is sunshine shining on the other side
of those clouds is through any faith he might have. There is not one piece of
substantial evidence given Neo that makes it clear that there is a world of
light beyond those clouds. Not that I know the character Neo?s thoughts on the
unseen sun, but what I believe is his faith is indeed validated at the end of
the third movie when his ship breaks through the barrier of clouds and he and
Trinity catch their first glimpse of the creation of the Father in its natural
beauty.



This angle of perception that I view this movie from keeps working for me if I
consider that Neo's unplugging from the Matrix was a violent and frightening
experience... much as is the awakening from the dream of personality. Which is
something scheduled by the soul within, or the self pre-incarnation. His alarm
clock went off and his journey to discover his mission, began. Step by step, he
followed his intuition in moving on a journey who's next step he did not know
beforehand. Asking outside sources for the meaning of his life and mission,
defining and redefining that mission at each turn until the end, that meaning
came from within Neo and culminated into the choice of fearlessness,
integration, love, sacrifice, and the power to wield free will.



Q'uo: "There was not one day when this entity awoke and said ?Eureka, I now know
what I must do, what my destiny is. I see every step and I am willing to take
it.? Rather, this entity was moved by a spirit and a voice that spoke not of the
larger picture, but of that which was to be accomplished in the immediate
present. It would be unwise and untrue to consider that the entity known as
Jesus had a grand overview and simply observed the many changes and
transformations which occurred during the entity?s active ministry. This was not
a god; this was a third-density human being, with every possible potential, both
for the light and for the dark side of third-density human nature."



>How did
>that little indian girl "create" the really beautiful
>sunrise at the end of the movie?



This is for someone else to answer. I guess it would involve going back to the
train station and listening to her Indian father describe what kind of program
he, his wife, and his daughter were. I was zoning out during that scene.


>Yes, I can appreciate the spiritual parallels, but the
>point of the Matrix was to provide a science fiction
>metaphor for deeper spiritual message.



I wrote in a fat post last night stating, as best i could, what I understood
it's deeper spiritual message to be. Whether I was dead on or dead off, did it
still not serve as a vehicle for a deeper spiritual message? : )



> ....us science fiction buffs needed a little more.



Understandable.



>was anybody else dissappointed in the last two films?
>Not for their "message" but for their lack of
>completeness *as films*? Like I said, it's too bad
>because the concept was really good.



I can't say that I was nearly as entertained by the second two as I was the
first. But, our opinions are just that, opinions, neither right nor wrong, as
are those of any other person who is capable of forming them. (Which, I always
do enjoy your opinions : )



I did want to make the point though that imperfection can be loved and
appreciated in it's fullness of imperfection. I was thinking of this and our new
shelves upstairs in the house came to mind. We had a carpenter named Bambi do
some work around the house who has been a dear and close friend of Jim and
Carla's for many years. He's an aging carpenter, slowing down and, though his
work is solid and sturdy, he's not constructing things as, umm, straight or
level as they could be.



For example: he built shelving for the upstairs level and no two shelves seem to
be alike. Some are even downright crooked, there is no getting around it, they
are uneven and crooked. It might be enough to incense the mind that need things
straight, orderly, and without flaw. Full-of-heart Carla, however, LOVES the
shelves. Where I (and others) may have been a little non-understanding and upset
with their construction, Carla somehow opened her heart to the work and the
worker, embraced the shelves and accepted them into the structure of the house.



I asked her "why exactly?", before I wrote this post and she said, "Because it's
pure Bambi". She can describe to you even better, in an inspirational tone, why
imperfection is to be celebrated and not shunned... the key factor that I pulled
from this analogy is the variable of the human element.



Whether that story is relevant or not, it was a good one anyways. I am just
making the point that with a critical eye, is not the only way to view any human
effort, be it movie making, food baking, relationship breaking, and even shelf
making. Not that I live in this ?everything is perfect realm?... not at all!
But, we should, if not live there, try to and speak about what those perceptions
might be like. Ya could take the position that it was two fellow humans who did
their best, fell short of their full potential, and gave millions of people a
decent show which at least got them thinking thoughts they may not have before,
and? writing some posts : ) And hey, it gave ya something to do for a couple
hours, that's always good, right?

>I dunno, I've done so much speculation on the meaning
>of the Matrix assuming that the Wachowskis would make
>it a profound movie...



Jeremy, I honestly think you are too smart for your own good! : )



As always, thank you for stimulating the brain into thinking into places where
it might not have before something you wrote.



Trust the perfection,

gary




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jeremy Weiland]

Gary,

My little complaint about Revolutions was not meant to
downplay your well-thought-out analysis of the movie's
spiritual symbolism. I think you're spot on, and the
movie certainly does have some good themes of facing
the shadow self that I did admire.

My point was that the symbolism is practically the
only redeeming quality. The movie - if taken at face
value - was pretty disappointing IMHO. I was
lamenting the apparent imbalance between metaphor and
telling a straight up good sci-fi story. It seems
like the Wachowski's are more into the former than the
latter.

Let me put it this way: a bunch of my friends and I
must have spent hours talking about the possible
scenarios that would resolve the questions hanging in
the air at the end of Reloaded. And I can tell you,
each of our explanations was loads better than the
explanation (or what sufficed for one) revealed in
Revolutions. (1:11 :-)

The fact that the Wachowski's flopped with such a
profound and rich concept (I thought the first Matrix
movie was great!) is a little depressing, and it makes
people less likely to think about these deeper
concepts if the movie - as an action/adventure movie
and not a parable - simply sucks, or doesn't make
sense. Now make no mistake, that's just my opinion,
but among the non-spiritual types, it's widely shared.
Sorry, don't mean to rain on your parade. :-)

Regarding accepting the imperfections in the movie,
I'm wholly willing to do that. But that also means
that I can't accept it as what I wanted it to be, but
must accept what it is. I was expecting a movie that
could entertain and enlighten simultaneously, and I
think that was too big of a task for a duo of rookie
filmakers. They did it, but not in a satisfying
manner, ***IMHO***.

What did y'all think of the Animatrix, BTW?

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[David Wilcock]

From: Jeremy Weiland

>I just saw Revolutions yesterday evening. It was
entertaining, since it was a Matrix movie, but it
definately did not "explain it all". I can appreciate
leaving it open ended, but the bottom line is that it
doesn't explain barely *anything*.

DW: I must agree with you here, Jeremy. My personal opinion of the film
is not very high. I will probably only see it in the theaters one more
time, as there is no reason to see it more than once or twice - there is
nothing new to "get", to analyze or to try to understand.

Vara and I both feel that when the Hollywood bigwigs found out the full
depth of what the Wachowskis had intended to do (and summarize) in the
third movie, they leaned heavily on them because it got "too close to
the truth." It isn't difficult to figure out where it COULD have gone,
had they been ALLOWED to do it. Some of the analyses of the movie online
have revealed many obvious clues that were littered about in the first
and second movies and especially in "Animatrix" that were just not
revealed in the third.

They probably also got in a lot of trouble for putting in the images of
George Bush Snr and Jnr while discussing the greatest villains of human
history via the Architect.

I can easily see the movie originally having been close to three hours,
and many valuable explanatory plot pieces getting eviscerated on the
cutting-room floor. They would not have written the movie in such a way
as to allow for anything to be cut for those really "into" it, so these
must have been great disappointments.

>I mean, did
anybody notice that right before Agent Smith "took
over" the Oracle he called her "mom"? What was that
about?

DW: Most people speculating on the Matrix felt that the "Mother of the
Matrix" referred to by the Architect had to be Persephone, simply
because when the Architect referred to this "Mother" and Neo said, "The
Oracle," the Architect said condescendingly, "Pleeease..."

Now we know that he was ONLY reacting to her name of "Oracle," not
actually disputing her identity. She reveals in the third movie that she
is his opposite - he is there to balance the equation and she is there
to unbalance it.

Indeed, one of the single most disappointing aspects of "Revolutions"
was the gigantic number of loose ends. As you said, Jeremy, very little
was explained. The total purpose of Persephone's character, if you'll
excuse my French, seemed to be to put breast cleavage on the screen for
a good 60 seconds and to kick in the line about how Trinity is willing
to die for Neo because she loves him. Why create characters with so many
potential directions and then discard them - such as the "Twins" from
Reloaded? It was obvious that Merovingian was the first "One" and that
Persephone was the first "Trinity," but they did NOTHING with this.

On the esoteric level, the movie subtly IMPLIES that no character in the
entire movie is a true-blue human being - they are all actually
"programs" once they get into the Matrix, hence are capable of being
taken over by the "Smith virus," symbolic of the Antichrist. Neo is a
computer program controlled by his mouth. It was therefore interesting
that he refused the Oracle's candy in Revolutions. Remember when
Persephone kissed him and said that she wanted "a sample?" Or how
Trinity kissed him in the first movie and he came back to life? Or how
"I promise once you finish it (eating this cookie) you'll feel right as
rain." Or the red and blue pill? Or the red candy the Oracle gives him
in the second movie?

So the 'Trinity' of "Man, Machine and Program" becomes One in the Matrix
- both machines and humans exist as programs. This could have been WAY
more well stated than it was.

We do NOT have confirmation that either Trinity or Neo is dead. Trinity
was badly wounded but we never SEE her die. Neo's body is dragged off
but we do not know if there is life in it. BIG gaps.

I think the best conclusion here is that they DID originally want to tie
it all together in the third movie and explain everything, and were
basically told to hold back all the best stuff for future movies.

>What is the rationale for his ability to exert
influence on the machines in the "real" world, or his
ability to remain "plugged in" to the Matrix?

DW: I wish they would have said it in words - I agree that this third
movie could have been done a LOT better. In the first movie we learn
that "the body cannot live without the mind." In the third movie, we
learn that "the mind CAN live without the body." Neo (a re-arrangement
of the word "One") becomes the Trinity of "man, machine and program,"
which is why he can see the machines in golden light once he becomes
blind. The One is the bridge between all three areas - man, machine and
program. He becomes all of them on the way to being the One. He is a
human with machine parts who can exist as a program in the Matrix.

>How did
that little indian girl "create" the really beautiful
sunrise at the end of the movie?

DW: This is definitely one of those things that indicates they could be
setting up a sequel and the idea that this is the last movie could be a
lie. Probably a money thing - Hollywood does not want to tie up this
entire franchise in three movies. The kid (Popper) was told once he read
the script that he will have a "much more important role later on" and
he was apparently dazzled when he realized "how important" his character
would become. This was from an interview in Australia. They may have to
kill off Trinity's character, because Carrie-Anne Moss has said that she
will never do another action-fighting movie.

The most that we can get about the Indian girl is that at the beginning
of Revolutions, her family had to cut a deal with the Merovingian in
order to avoid their daughter being deleted as a program without a
"purpose." Apparently her purpose was love. We also know that she was
one of the "potentials" of the Oracle - those trained to be the next
One. Apparently she was the MOST IMPORTANT potential, due to how close
she was to the Oracle in Revolutions.

So if you figure that they fast forward the timeline another 13 years
for a sequel, you've got Popper as the next One (which was set up
strongly in "Animatrix" since he was the first to escape the Matrix
without outside help, i.e. "wirelessly,") and a gorgeous 18-19 year old
woman as the next Trinity. Popper will look a lot better if they lose
the bald head and the constantly-worried facial expressions, and if you
noticed in a few scenes, he also has an unusually well-developed
musculature. If you throw in some facial hair to go with a longer
haircut, he could look much more developed for the role of "One."

>Yes, I can appreciate the spiritual parallels, but the
point of the Matrix was to provide a science fiction
metaphor for deeper spiritual message. There's no
explanation nor depth to the story or science, though.
I admire a storyteller's use of ommission for effect,
but they built this up as the movie that would
explain, and all it did was push the parable. I
dunno, us science fiction buffs needed a little more.

DW: In many ways the movie was way, way too surfacey to please its
hardcore fans... I think as the consensus rolls in over ensuing weeks,
most people will be displeased with the potentials that were broken.

Generally if you're going to do "only three" movies, you want to have
some major revelation / huge plot twist that surprises everyone at the
conclusion. One such example would be that EVERYONE in the movie was
actually a humanlike machine, and that we never actually saw any "real"
human beings. There are several clues in Animatrix that they were
heading in that direction, especially the last episode - however,
perhaps the Hollywood bigwigs felt that it would be too disappointing to
the audiences for them to actually pull out something like this.

>Personally I think they made the Matrix movies
(especially the last two) entirely too metaphorical.
It really harmed the script, plot, and effect of the
movies by trying to "make a point" instead of telling
a compelling and believable story. Every time I see
the 2nd film I like it less - it's such a hack. It's
too bad because the concept is awesome but they try to
work in all this metaphor for spiritual matters and
they don't do it very well. Plus the dialogue and
diction absolutely sucks a la Star Wars.

DW: I was disappointed with the second movie as well, but not as much as
the third. One of my major complaints with the third movie is "not
everyone who wants to see this movie is a video-game freak." I thought
the half-hour spent on the battle for Zion could have been chopped to 10
minutes, and those other 20 could have been used for scenes that would
round out the plot points. Some of the alleged "spoilers" out there on
the Net were WAY better than the real screenplay, and explained a lot
more.

So in conclusion, I feel that if they were going to set up so much new
intellectual content in the second movie and then do almost nothing to
follow up on it in the third, they would have been better off making the
second movie more streamlined. However, again, both Vara and I get the
feeling that the third movie was stripped of its "oomph" because it got
too close to a variety of truths.

One last point is this. A part of me was actually glad that the third
movie was so under-satisfying. So many young people have taken on the
Matrix symbology as part of their spiritual beliefs. If the third movie
were really, really good and powerful, then they'd watch it over and
over again and have a sense that their "Matrix" universe was complete.
However, with it being so under-whelming, these fans will still be
hungry and want to seek more. In that sense, the very aspects that the
movie lacks become catalysts to get people to explore beyond just the
movie.

I do think, though, that the ending did a great job of putting the
Ascension theme out there, as Gary had indicated. After Smith was
defeated, the bodies of humanity were all lying apparently dead in the
darkness and rain, then the Matrix was "reloaded" and they all came back
to life in the "new world" that had definite multidimensional qualities
- especially the colors in the sunset.

Peace be with you -

- David

[Lesley Schultz]

Dear Jeremy, L/L & Peace to All:

I haven't seen the new Matrix movie yet, but the buzz
on the street around here is that it's very
disappointing. Judging from the List traffic here,
I'd say I'm in for maybe three hours of my life in a
movie theater seat that I won't get back again.
HOWEVER, just reading all this List traffic has made
it almost worthwhile seeing because at least I will
have plenty of might-have-beens and
-could-have-done-it-this-ways to think about while I'm
being bored senseless by the battle scenes.

You know, as soon as the Oracle asked Neo to have a
cookie in the first movie, I knew that there was going
to be something coming about maybe everyone existing
in a program-- on every level. That cookie-thing was
just too obvious. I think you're right, Jeremy: it's
much more interesting when a movie works on multiple
levels, and works equally on those levels, then when
on the surface it looks ho-hum but has lots of
metaphors. Americans are very lazy people. They don't
like to think if they don't have to, as a rule. They
only resort to using their brains when something
doesn't work that should- or works when it shouldn't.


It's like any other art form. If a piece of art
doesn't succeed on an aesthetic level, even if it has
a powerful message for those that are educated enough
to read it, it can't be considered great art. I think
fans of the Matrix wanted great art like Picasso but
got Andy Warhol. And everyone knows Mozart and
Beethoven, but who remembers the musicians that
pioneered the twelve-toned harmony that came out in
the early part of the last century? Damn, I used to
remember one of those guy's names [I think begins with
an "S"] but you see my point? Only musicologists and
nerds like me even know about that stuff.

Perhaps we may see Director's Cuts of the Matrix
movies yet, as there is TONS of money to be made in
those, even if subsequent Matrix movies don't
materialize.

If we didn't take anything more away from the Matrix
experience than this, at least we have the immortal
expression: "There is no spoon." Such a useful
metaphor.

I'm just hoping that I'm not disappointed by "Return
of the King." If I'm not, then this will be the only
trilogy I've ever seen that was uniformly good right
through.

Blessings,
~lesley


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Jeremy Weiland]

> It's like any other art form. If a piece of art
> doesn't succeed on an aesthetic level, even if it
> has a powerful message for those that are educated
> enough to read it, it can't be considered great
> art.

You summed it up much more eloquently than I, Lesley.
That is *precisely* what I meant. :-)

> I think fans of the Matrix wanted great art like
> Picasso but got Andy Warhol.

HEY! Some of us like paintings of Campbell's soup
cans. :-P

> And everyone knows Mozart and Beethoven, but who
> remembers the musicians that pioneered the twelve-
> toned harmony that came out in the early part of the

> last century? Damn, I used to remember one of those

> guy's names [I think begins with an "S"] but you see

> my point? Only musicologists and nerds like me even

> know about that stuff.

Oh, now you're really gonna get it. Schoenberg is one
of my favorite composers, and since I'm not a
musicologist, that leaves only one label for me.

Don't worry, I admit I'm a nerd. :-)

> Perhaps we may see Director's Cuts of the Matrix
> movies yet, as there is TONS of money to be made in
> those, even if subsequent Matrix movies don't
> materialize.

You know what sucks, though? Check out the special
features on the Reloaded DVD - absolutely worthless.
The worse extras I've *ever* seen on a DVD. Basically
the actors get together to talk about how profound
their work is, how great the other actors are, how
historic the movie is, and how hard "training" for the
fight scenes was. Give me a break. It's a crime to
waste such a brilliant concept on Keanu Reaves'
musings.

There's no reason to get your hopes up for a
director's cut. If David's right and the original
plot was enough to censor, then it's something "they"
don't want out there - period.

> I'm just hoping that I'm not disappointed by "Return
> of the King." If I'm not, then this will be the
> only trilogy I've ever seen that was uniformly good
> right through.

So far, Peter Jackson has not disappointed. That team
has done a wonderful job and from the previews of ROTK
on the Two Towers DVD, it looks like it's going to be
the best one. Not long now...

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hey David:

> Vara and I both feel that when the Hollywood bigwigs
> found out the full depth of what the Wachowskis had
> intended to do (and summarize) in the third movie,
> they leaned heavily on them because it got "too
> close to the truth." It isn't difficult to figure
> out where it COULD have gone, had they been ALLOWED
> to do it.

That's certainly a possibility - I mean, it doesn't
take a very sophisticated person to realize how
pregnant the Matrix concept is with thought provoking
ideas and potential. The public is believed to be
either too stupid for the "real script" (wrong) or too
smart (definately more likely).

> Some of the analyses of the movie online have
> revealed many obvious clues that were littered about

> in the first and second movies and especially
> in "Animatrix" that were just not revealed in the
> third.

This was almost the worst part - there was little
connection to the broad themes of Reloaded. Even if
they had continued those themes I would have been
disappointed, but Revolutions just ended up being such
a *hack*.

> Why create characters with so many potential
> directions and then discard them - such as
> the "Twins" from Reloaded? It was obvious that
> Merovingian was the first "One" and that Persephone
> was the first "Trinity," but they did NOTHING with
> this.

The only possible explanations I can think of is the
absense of one of these:
- intelligence / talent on the part of the authors
- permission from the higher ups
- good intentions

Your scenario (the movie's full potential was not
realized b/c the Wachowskis' hands were tied) assumes
the Matrix was a movie about "enlightenment" and not
disinformation. I've always believed the Matrix was
about distorting new age beliefs. If this was not
their intent, it certainly was the outcome IMHO.

The upside of the movies is that it will get people to
think, but unfortunately the bland ending of this
trilogy is not nearly as conducive as it could be to
that end.

> One of my major complaints with the third movie
> is "not everyone who wants to see this movie is a
> video-game freak."

Actually, I thought the AVUs were the best part of the
movie. But that's just an old anime fan's opinion...
:-)

> I thought the half-hour spent on the battle for Zion

> could have been chopped to 10 minutes, and those
> other 20 could have been used for scenes that would
> round out the plot points.

Definately. Thought the fight between Neo and Agent
Smith at the end was way too long, too.

> One last point is this. A part of me was actually
> glad that the third movie was so under-satisfying.
> So many young people have taken on the Matrix
> symbology as part of their spiritual beliefs. If
> the third movie were really, really good and
> powerful, then they'd watch it over and over again
> and have a sense that their "Matrix" universe was
> complete. However, with it being so under-whelming,

> these fans will still be hungry and want to seek
> more. In that sense, the very aspects that the movie

> lacks become catalysts to get people to explore
> beyond just the movie.

That is a great point. Since the movie doesn't flesh
out the undercurrents of spiritual truth, they will
have to initiate their own search to reconcile the
ideas and questions the movies pose.

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[darktemplarssj]

>
> That's certainly a possibility - I mean, it doesn't
> take a very sophisticated person to realize how
> pregnant the Matrix concept is with thought provoking
> ideas and potential. The public is believed to be
> either too stupid for the "real script" (wrong) or too
> smart (definately more likely).
>
The ending of the first movie was even changed. Read this excerpt
that I found online.
-----------------------------------------------

At the end of the movie, Neo says to The Matrix:

"I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're
afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know
the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end.
I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang
up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you
don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you,
a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a
world where anything is possible. Where we go from there, is a
choice I leave to you.".

As Larry and Andy Wachowski say in The Art of The Matrix (Newmarket
2000), the shooting script for The Matrix is "... not exactly what
people saw in theaters. ... An example ... is in the final speech by
Neo (scene 219) which was altered when test audiences didn't know
the word "chrysalis". ...". At the end of the shooting script, Neo
says to The Matrix:

"Hi. It's me. I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I imagine
you can also feel me. You won't have to search for me anymore. I'm
done running. Done hiding. Whether I'm done fighting, I suppose, is
up to you. I believe deep down, we both want this world to change. I
believe that the Matrix can remain our cage or it can become our
chrysalis, that's what you helped me to understand. That to be truly
free, truly free, you cannot change your cage. You have to change
yourself. When I used to look out at this world, all I could see was
its edges, its boundaries, its leaders and laws. But now, I see
another world. A different world where all things are possible. A
world of hope. Of peace. I can't tell you how to get there, but I
know if you can free your mind, you'll find the way.".

The movie ending leaves humans with a two-fold choice:

for humans to fight to live outside The Matrix ( recall that Neo
says, just before he takes the Red Pill: "I don't like the idea that
I am not in control of my own Life."); or
for humans to remain in The Matrix ( recall that Cypher says: "Why,
oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill !").


The shooting script ending leaves humans and The Matrix with a three-
fold choice:

for humans to fight to live outside The Matrix;
for humans to remain caged in The Matrix; or
for humans (caterpillars) to combine with The Matrix (chrysalis) to
metamorphose into a higher form of life (butterfly).

----------------------------------------------------------------

I think the latter concept(the one that was left out) hits home
pretty well on the ascension theme. Another thing I've picked up
reading about the original movie is that when the first movie was
released there was a comic book that acompanied it, this was given
out the opening night the first few showings, but then was cancelled
and all descryable copied were taken back. I can't remember who
made them but they also put out a notice that the recievers of the
comic should "destroy them because they contained questionable
content".

In this situation I believe that it was the initial attempt of the
brothers that just barely slipped through the cracks but who's girth
was caught before becoming mainstream.

The first movie as well seems to be filled with much more
symbolism. Does Anyone know if the color scheme red/blue/green is
related somehow to the ray-complex idea, I've been trying to see if
it is "in there" but im not sure.
-Dave

[Lesley Schultz]

My very dear Jeremy:

--- Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GjhM9hxKYDCn5vLtdd8SqyzzWFhjmA8128fHp7 RMCx4NMU-4AhFk0V-1hgD01V5Lhjm4eAxbciL957ZXkJUNHWg)> wrote:
> > > I think fans of the Matrix wanted great art like
> > Picasso but got Andy Warhol.
>
> HEY! Some of us like paintings of Campbell's soup
> cans. :-P
>
LS: Philistine. ;-)

>snip>> > Oh, now you're really gonna get it.
Schoenberg is > one > of my favorite composers, and
since I'm not a > musicologist, that leaves only one
label for me. > Don't worry, I admit I'm a nerd. :-)

LS: Well, that's a relief. I'm glad I'm not the only
nerd on the List! ;-) Dear God, you like Schoenberg?!
Well, it is interesting music but I guess I'm
hopelessly mired in tradition. Comes of being old, I
guess.
>
> snip> You know what sucks, though? Check out the
special > features on the Reloaded DVD - absolutely
worthless. > The worse extras I've *ever* seen on a
DVD. Basically the actors get together to talk about
how profound their work is, how great the other actors
are, how historic the movie is, and how hard
"training" for the fight scenes was. Give me a
break. It's a crime to waste such a brilliant concept
on Keanu Reaves' musings.

LS: Well, I've heard from folks "in the business"
who've worked with him that Keanu isn't the sharpest
pencil in the drawer. He's not much of an actor, no
question about that, although I though he was
perfectly cast as the hapless and bumbling suitor of
Uma Thurman in "Dangerous Liasons." Carrie Moss
basically plays herself in what she does. Larry
Fishbourne is basically wasted in his role. Hugo
Weaver, on the other hand......I just love him. He's
fabulous as the rather cranky Elf Lord in LOTR. And I
liked him in "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert." He's a
fine actor who rises WELL above his material in the
Matrix movies. I love Agent Smith. He's such a s*^t.
>
>snip> There's no reason to get your hopes up for a
> director's cut. If David's right and the original
> plot was enough to censor, then it's something
> "they"> don't want out there - period.

LS: Yeah, you and David are probably right.
>
>snip >> So far, Peter Jackson has not disappointed.
That team has done a wonderful job and from the
previews of ROTK on the Two Towers DVD, it looks like
it's going to be the best one. Not long now...

LS: You said it, bud! So, is this Schultz and Weiland
signing off and saying, "see you at the movies"? ;-)
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[bitsmart]

I know what you mean. I think The Matrix was special in the beginning because it
was the first movie to present these kinds of spiritual metaphors in such an
intense and obscure way. It messed with peoples heads when they asked themselves
"what if reality really is like this?" Having seen all three movies, The
Animatrix and the rest, I feel like it was the dissapointing product of a good
idea. Don't forget, The Wachowskis really wanted to pay homage to the Anime
stuff, the kung fu movies, the comic books, and while it's an interesting medium
for spriritual metaphors, it's probably not the best.

Nevertheless, I thought The Matrix was entertaining, and the new technologies
and methods that were employed has once again raised the bar on what is possible
and what should be explored.


I dunno, I've done so much speculation on the meaning
of the Matrix assuming that the Wachowskis would make
it a profound movie... it seems like a waste of time
since it's unlikely to be that profound, regardless of
what potential the Matrix concept contains.

Sorry if this brings you down! :-)

Jeremy

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Wilcock]

From: darktemplarssj

The first movie as well seems to be filled with much more
symbolism. Does Anyone know if the color scheme red/blue/green is
related somehow to the ray-complex idea, I've been trying to see if
it is "in there" but im not sure.

DW: Well, it is certainly true that the "real world" is very dark
whereas the Matrix has the predominance of the green color - i.e. the
fourth-density potential.

The one thing that hardly ever gets mentioned is that when Neo first
"awakens," he is in room 101, and when he opens a door and is shot by
Smith, it is in room 303. Knock out the zeros in each number and you
have 11 (initiation) to 33 (spiritual perfection.) Some have attributed
the 9:18 on the clock when he wakes up to go to work as tied in with the
Bible, but this was apparently inadvertent - one of the Wachowskis had a
girlfriend with this birthday.

The second movie contains A LOT of unrevealed material, like the first -
but as I said, it seems essentially wasted in the third. I do freely
admit that they set the bar so high for themselves that the movie will
be quite unfairly judged in light of the success and power of the first.


Peace be with you -

- David

[darktemplarssj]

Does anyone know what this is?
November 6th 2003--------------------------------------------------

go deeper

Path/ViaRevolutions/ThirdSlot/top/EmbeddedDVD/0x(31)+0-
F/ZionArchives

TheMatrix.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I found it posted on www.whatisthematrix.com It looks to me like a
hidden path, maybe on the Reloaded DVD. Did anyone buy the DVD?
-Dave

[tiospaye1]

I cannot really conceive of a more dystopian flick than Matrix
Revolutions.

At the end of three films of some of the most memorable film making
in recent history, most especially the first Matrix movie, which by
any scale is simply an awesome product of movie making ingenuity,
the human community of Zion has barely survived in a Pit deep in the
bowels of the Earth, ready and open to be crushed whenever, the
Matrix world is restored and newly vibrant (all those plugged in
human batteries intact) and the Machines rule uncontested and
triumphant.

There is little or no possibilty of humanity freeing itself from the
iron grip of the Machine, much less of any Ascension.
(Oh how one felt for poor Trinity as she glimpsed the blue sky and
brilliant sun of the real world when she and Neo flew above the lurid
grey world of the Machine in the penultimate sequence of the movie.

Just before her presumed death.)

And Neo, the One, the Messiah, the Savior, making a deal with the
Macines to maintain the status quo. Oyvay!


Matrix Revolutions leaves the viewer, at least this viewer, hopeless
for the sorry plight of humanity. Real humanity, not pixels in a
matrix.


The Matrix Trilogy is Illuminati Mind Control filmmaking at its
finest and I caution you all against it.


Jeff

[David Wilcock]

From: tiospaye1

>I cannot really conceive of a more dystopian flick than Matrix
Revolutions...

the human community of Zion has barely survived in a Pit deep in the
bowels of the Earth, ready and open to be crushed whenever, the
Matrix world is restored and newly vibrant (all those plugged in
human batteries intact) and the Machines rule uncontested and
triumphant.

There is little or no possibilty of humanity freeing itself from the
iron grip of the Machine, much less of any Ascension...

And Neo, the One, the Messiah, the Savior, making a deal with the
Macines to maintain the status quo. Oyvay!

Matrix Revolutions leaves the viewer, at least this viewer, hopeless
for the sorry plight of humanity. Real humanity, not pixels in a
matrix.

The Matrix Trilogy is Illuminati Mind Control filmmaking at its
finest and I caution you all against it.

DW: Dear Jeff and Group,

OK, good - somebody else said it besides me. Remember, the whole point
of the first movie was that everyone including those doing psychedelic
drugs, listening to heavy music, surfing the Net and the like was waking
up to the idea that something was wrong with the world. Hence, this
whole disenfranchised body of people felt a real sense of identity from
all of this - that their own job was to "escape the Matrix," et cetera.
Everyone related to the idea of "Agents" and to the idea of a Messiah,
and so on.

However, the conclusion of the third movie is such a heavy-handed
attempt to tell people exactly how to think (as if the Matrix series is
"inspired by God" and therefore should be followed like a religion,)
that I really doubt anyone will be affected by it. I certainly would
encourage you to realize that people do have discernment, and thus I
highly doubt that you're suddenly going to see a surge of percentages of
people in favor of the Iraq ocuptn, et cetera.

There is a level of the ending that is indeed valid - the idea that the
shadow side cannot be overcome, merely integrated. In one sense,
whomever is behind it was aware that it contained a
thousands-of-years-old Gnostic metaphysical perspective, that can
legitimately be explored for greater understanding. That part of the
movie, when viewed from within the archetypes of the personality self,
is valid.

However, in the context of those currently in power, the whole series
obviously becomes an attempt to reframe the whole notion of Ascension to
the masses - with the idea being that "We're going to be here and going
to be in power when this happens, so resistance is futile - you will be
assimilated." Of course, as we know, this is preposterous - an
adolescent fantasy just like the half-hour video game battle for Zion in
the middle of the movie.

On the one hand the idea of getting people to work together is a great
concept, but on the other hand the ONLY concession offered by the
Machines is, "If you want to unplug yourself and live in this
practically decimated hell pit of Zion, be my guest - we're not going to
chase after you."

I imagine that the Wachowskis have gained considerable power and
influence in the group as a result of doing this movie series. I've
always felt that the skinnier brother, Larry, was the real brains behind
the operation. Hollywood friends of mine tell me that the term
"brothers" won't legitimately apply to them much longer - Larry came to
the premiere of the first movie in drag, which did create quite a stir
in Hollywood at the time but was subsequently covered up, and now the
gender-changing shots are almost complete, and breast implants will
probably go in as well.

I imagine that Hollywood has been working overtime to try to hide this,
since most people are very prejudiced and it could seriously affect the
sales of the movie in the public eye - not to mention the minds of so
many kids who think the Matrix is "cool" but would have a very difficult
time with transsexuals. I feel that he probably never could have done
this as a member of the group without having risen to enough power that
he could then do whatever he wanted - it is also his personal statement
of breaking out of the "Matrix" of being a male.

The movie DOES also subconsciously get you thinking that humans might
all be machines, in more ways than one, as they never explain how the
machine soul of Agent Smith was able to possess a human's body in the
"Real World". It is also interesting to contemplate how similar
Trinity's wounds at the end were to the crucifixion nails - but for her
there was nothing further - she just appears to have died.

The other obvious clue was that in Animatrix, the machine city is
referred to as "Zero One," or "01." So, Z10N sounds like 01 and can be
written in "hackerese" with the numbers backwards. That would imply that
Zion and ZeroOne are the same city, that everyone in the movie is a
machine and the real humanity that created them are not seen. This fits
in VERY nicely with Illuminist philosophy and a number of people had
actively put the clues together and anticipated such an ending. That in
and of itself could be another attempt to influence consciousness.

The other clue was that the robot who rebelled was BI66ER, and the two
6's are G's, so you get "BIGGER." This again suggests that the robots
wanted to become "bigger", i.e. more like human beings. Then you see the
last episode of "Animatrix" and what you have is a nasty killing machine
basically being "humanized" by other human beings - transformed into a
human, for all intents and purposes.

Again, I would just remind everyone to find the gratitude in this
situation. I am grateful for the fact that the Matrix series ended like
this, because all the seeking it created will now have to find other
venues. It bodes very well for material like the Law of One, as it has
tailored people's imaginations enough to allow in a larger perspective
of "reality."

Peace be with you -

- David