The movie doesn't show people taking a dump
There is a difference between showing on-screen families, airports, named cities, schools, sports, entertainment etc. and on-screen pooping. There is no "privacy" issue with naming the one city shown in the matrix, with showing families and recreation and other travel or cultural elements. We are shown a rave party and a soul-less cubicle hell of a job to establish the culture of The Matrix. That minimalist choice says something. The Matrix is a video/computer game.
Actually, there is a family: the Indian family at the bus station.
You are showing an unfamiliarity with Revolutions.
1. It is a train station not bus.
2. The (Mobil Ave.) train station is not in The Matrix. That's why Neo can't control things there and can't get out.
3. The "Indian family" are not human beings at all. They are just computer programs.
There are kids who live with the Oracle.
But it is clearly not a "family". There are no parents there. These kids are called "potentials". Had you given any thought to what their potential might be?
There is a high school in the Animatrix.
If you have seen Animatrix, I don't know how you could miss the resemblance of this world to a video game world. It isn't really "reality" and it isn't trying to be.
This is fictional social allegory, just like Gulliver's Travels, Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, etc. These fantasy worlds aren't supposed to be real and make sense as a real place people could live. Like these other stories, The Matrix is a statement about our OWN society, accomplished by creating a cartoonish, unrealistic version of it to point out our flaws and problems. It was never meant to be taken as a real place. Even the central theme of human bodies as "batteries" doesn't make real scientific sense. The meaning of The Matrix is meant to be taken symbolically, not realistically.
The movie clearly shows that people are grown by machines from babies to adults, which means that they are also babies in the matrix as well.
Not necessarily. You are not thinking clearly about the situation. Are you trying to say that when The Matrix first started, every human being in there was a baby?
Obviously not. For the Matrix to get started, most of the people had to be inserted as adults, with the memories of their childhood implanted. There is no reason that process would not continue through each 100 year cycle of the Matrix.
Trying to throw all that away so you can justify the use of lame CGI is absurd.
This is a stupid statement at every level. It wasn't "lame" CGI at the time of the movie's making. It was cutting edge. Apparently you weren't born when the movie was made.
And if it seems like "lame CGI" now, then so what? A timeless classic transcends its technology, with Wizard Of Oz already being a prime example given. Knuckleheads like you seem to think that movies shouldn't have been made before CGI existed. And of course, you are too dumb to realize that today's CGI will seem lame in a few years, so you think it is a complete waste of time to make movies today.
reply
share
pelican_somber
8 years ago
Wow, I saw some really nice dodging there. Someone has been watching the debates
The Indian man clearly refers to the girl as his daughter and introduces the woman as his wife. BAM. Family. And they live in the Matrix, like other programs. He even loves her, just like humans do. Neo comments on that. So, right off the bat, you're completely wrong that there are no children or that there are no families in the Matrix. There are children --human and non-human--in the Matrix. You're free to assume that they don't grow up, but you're not justified in your assumption by any evidence in the films. There are babies, small children, and high school aged kids in the movies, which demonstrates a natural progression. That's the evidence, bucko. This has no bearing on the the fact that the Matrix is still a program to control all that.
The babies shown in the first movie are plugged into the Matrix, and would still need that neural control--probably even more so--that adults have to thrive for the machines. The Architect stated that they lost crops of people when they weren't plugged into a good system. Obviously a baby would need to be too. Obviously. And if their mental projection of themselves isn't developed into an adult, then their matrix-selves would be babies too.
Obviously I am thinking clearly about the situation.
The Matrix Reloaded is probably my all-around favorite of the trilogy. But I am not laboring under the delusion that it will be considered a "timeless classic" as the first movie was. Currently, The Matrix ranks #18 on IMDB's top 250. The sequels don't even make it at all. And part of that, I suspect, is because it overreached. It wasn't a great move, and most fans admit that. Only some try to re-write the premise of the movie to try to fit the wonky CGI of the Burly Brawl.
reply
share
pelican_somber
8 years ago
I just realized that your argument, when it comes down to it, is that the wonky CGI was done on purpose, and that the Wachowski's could have done better with it, but chose not to so as to impress upon us that we are looking at a computer program that, at some select times, looks like a PS2 game.
Ha Ha HA!
I wonder why we didn't see more of that and why they used more practical effects and wires. Since the point is to remind us that we're looking at a simulation.
reply
share