Talk:The Matrix/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Reviews

Is it really justified to sell "87% of positive reviews" on Rotten Tomatoes as the real deal if that's professional reviews plus fan reviews? The result for professional reviews is 68%, and I consider that much more realistic, also given the fact that Metacritic, only utilizing professional reviews, counts 72% of positive reviews. Everything beyond that 60-72% is fan cruft reviews from people who obviously never knew much of what we're listing at Simulated reality in fiction, which is why they consider The Matrix so original and ingenious, much in contrast to the opinion of many professional critics. --79.193.61.243 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not fan reviews O_o, that is 87% of professional critics. Your personal opinion about the film does not dictate the overall opinion. Top Critics is arbitrary, RT decides who is a top critic and each region gets to pick its own, so I in the UK see 80% from Top Critics while someone else obviously saw 67% wherever they were viewing the site from. I've removed that part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it *IS* fan reviews of people who registered to RT just to review their personal favorite movies. Pretty much like a Facebook for movie fans. That's what makes up the 87%, whereas professional response to the movie was and is much closer to 68-72%, also verified by the more weighted average at Metacritic. --79.193.61.243 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic and RT are not the same thing, and they are professional reviewers. The fan review is at 81%. Again, your personal opinion of what it deserves is not of consequence. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, they are two different review aggregators, whereas the first thing you see displayed on Metacritic is the percentage for professional reviews, and on RT the percentage of positive fan reviews. On RT you have to click further in order to see the percentage for professionals. In the case of The Matrix, the count with professionals is 68-72% on both RT *AND* Metacritic. It should tell you something that two different review aggregators count only a 4% difference in professional reviews.

The 81% on RT are based upon all fans who gave a personal rating without writing a review. 87% is the fan reviews with ratings plus the fan ratings without a review. Professional reviews at RT are 68%. --79.193.61.243 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just explained to you, Top Critics (what you consider professionals) is different depending on where you view the site from. I don't see any 68%, I see 80%, that is why we don't include Top Critics. Despite your dislike that it has high ratings, the 87% IS professional critics, it is not a fan rating. Do you think they just randomly collect 128 fan reviews? And MC is not a percentage, its an average score out of 100. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

They collect fan ratings like Facebook collects user accounts. I don't see where "random" figures into that. The main *POINT* of registering at RT and Metacritic is to give fan ratings and fan reviews for your favorite movies. Both aggregators obviously see this fan input as a balance to the professional reviews they're collecting (it's just that RT presents the fan figures more prominently). The 81 and 87% figures are pretty much like user ratings on Amazon. They tell you what the "average movie fan" thinks, but they're no professional reviews. --79.193.61.243 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done with this discussion now. RT is used all across Wikipedia, this is the review section of The Matrix, 7 pages of reviews by people working for professional bodies that makes up the 87% score, the score that says 128 reviews below it, the consensus to the right which is created from those 128 reviews. No fan reviews. You don't like the film, that is fine, but you are wrong, your information is wrong, and you should drop this like of argument now because it isn't going to go anywhere.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if you'd just listen instead of trying to justify a ridicilous figure just because it's one of *YOUR* favorite movies. I never questioned RT as a credible source, but it is only so if you're not confusing the fan reviews and fan ratings there for a credible source. The 81 and 87% are not based on the 128 professional reviews you see first on the way down the page (and that come down to 68% positive reviews), they're based on the 28,729(!) pages of individual fan reviews and fan ratings (aka "audience reviews") that you can access *BELOW* the professional review snippets. That's right, there's about 4,000-times more fan reviews than professional reviews for this movie on RT (128 professional reviews on 7 pages, vs. 28,729 pages of fan reviews)! And again, the fact that *TWO* different review aggregators agree on a 68-72% figure with professional reviews should ring a bell with you.

If you wanna use RT, please know how it works, okay? --79.193.61.243 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am the one who doesn't know how it works. Why didn't I realise that they would have TWO scores, side by side, one based on fans, one based on professional reviews AND fans, and then yet another third score which I've explained to you changed depending on who views the site and where. That there IS no 67% score, you see that because of where you are, I see 80% because of where I am. You're willfully ignoring that. Read Wikipedia:Review aggregators and stop wasting my time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RT doesn't have a score based on "fans AND professionals", they have one score for professionals ("Top Critics", 68%), one for all fan reviews with ratings ("All Critics", aka "Audience Reviews" further down, 87%), and one for *ALL* fan ratings (including those without a review, "x% liked it", 81%). As said before, RT puts more emphasis on fan reviews than professional reviews, which is also why the first value you see on top of the page is the result of all fan reviews with ratings.

Oh, if RT only tells me about the professional reviews in *MY* area, then how come that these 128 professional reviews (coming down to 68% favorable reviews) are written by 128 professional US movie critics that don't even reside on the same *CONTINENT* as I do? Oh, then I guess the 81 and 87% from fan reviews and fan ratings must be from my area? Not only do RT and Metacritic agree on 68-72% for professional reviews, they also agree on 81-87% or 8.6/10 for fan opinions. So we have 5 different values (taken just from what I can see where I am) where both RT and Metacritic are incredibly close to each other. --79.193.61.243 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What the movie references

Before we get into an edit war about gnosticism, first make sure the article adheres to Wikipedia conventions about what should be in the lead section: I couldn't find anything about what the movie allegedly references in the main article. So first put that information into the main article (or just point it out, it's very possible that I missed it). Second, reduce the part in the lead section to only a summary of what's in the main article. And at some point it needs to be distinguished what the creators of the movie intentionally referenced, and what outsiders have interpreted those references to be. There is a clear distinction; the phrasing at the moment seems to confuse the two. Nczempin (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Larry or Lana

I still maintain my view (as the edit got reverted) that Lana's previous name (Larry) should be changed as Lana is the name she currently uses.

On the DVD the directors are called "The Wachowski brothers" and on IMDb they're referenced by their current names. I'm not disputing the use of the former as it's so in the DVD, but if the directors' real names are used in the article then it should be their current names.

I will re-edit the article once more as per this opinion, but I won't touch the article after that if the community sees otherwise and reverts it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.91.64 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not re-add Lana. It should reflect the reality as it was at the time. It retroactively affects her biography, not the biography of everything she was involved with. This has been discussed before. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war (as usual).

Maybe at the next RB I could quote myself. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Epic

There is a dispute over the addition of Epic as well as other items on this page and instead of revert warring, this should be being discussed here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And genres should be limited to primary, it is a science fiction action film, not a science fiction action thriller. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In no reverting were given reasons, no one has even less written that my sources were not reliable. Conversely, which are the sources for the current version? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The genre is drawn specifically from the film, it is a primary source. It is backed up by any and every body you can name, at least up to Science Fiction as a base. Betty Logan undid an IP edit that because the term "Epic" is abused frequently by people and no explanation was given for its addition. The later removals I don't know his motivation but Im not sure why that book or one person calling it an epic makes it an epic, certainly don't know why it justifies the addition of thriller as well. There are primary genres because otehrwise it would be an epic science fiction action martial arts thriller horror film. And frankly, this debate about Epic has been had in the FilmProject frequently, I'm not sure what definition the book author is using, but it fails to meet the definition of epic as written out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the recent discussions about the use of the over-use word "epic" at the FilmProject, and what appears to be a poor reference is what led to my removing the word. The Matrix is many things, but "epic"? It wanted to be (as did many of its fans), but it is not. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the opening sentence should only list two genres at most (any more and it starts to sound over-pedantic for an opening sentence), and I think that the two that are currently there are an efficient way of describing the film: "science fiction film" covers the film's central premise, and "action film" conveys its large emphasis on fighting and shooting. A couple of years ago there was a series of edits about whether "adventure" should be listed as a genre instead of "action" - I didn't think so, because I felt it was less specifically descriptive.

At the moment, the article first mentions the word "cyberpunk" towards the end of the lead section, and then it waits until the Influences section to provide more detail about the movie's relationship to other works in the cyberpunk genre. In the same way, if there are reliable sources that provide interesting discussions of the movie's place in the "epic" genre, then those sources' arguments could make good additions to the Influences or Reception sections of the article.

I just don't think the word "epic" should be added to the lead sentence - or sneaked into a footnote in the lead sentence, for that matter! --Nick R^Talk 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of deceased relatives in relation to the making of a film a year prior

So it's been a week, and Mauro has decided that other editors are idiots and don't know what they are doing again. To be precise he thinks that when two editors remove an item of information because it has no relevance, we must be idiots and it is relevant. His argument in this case is that 7 months AFTER THE FILM WAS RELEASED, the death of Reeves' child impacted how the role he had already completed and then the role in films that came 3 years later. Even though what happened to him isn't particularly common knowledge and no sources associate anything he did with the films with that event and that there are major time gaps between them. But me and Flax just don't know what we are doing. And Mauro, as before, is only interested in reverting until he gets his way.

We should maybe add this information to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure as well, it was only made 10 years before it all happened. I'm interested in how it pre-affected his acting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

While your sarcasm is over the top, you are definitely correct. That information belongs in Keeanu Reeves (I assume it's already there), but it certainly has nothing to do with this movie series. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As always I apologise for the sarcasm. That is actually better than what I was going to go with before I took a breather. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you think to talk about this in the article?

Or could it be advertising? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Trimming required. Again.

Well, trimming is required, again. I've added some word in the plot summary, but for good reason. First, I really want to see this article nominated as a good article. You guys seem to be having no problems with other sections, but the plot summary need some work for those who haven't seen the movie before. So I added some thing that will help those casual readers understand. In the latest edit, I tried to define what's happening in the Matrix and what in the real world so they can follow. I've added the importance of their physical body in the real world, otherwise, Cypher's action wouldn't make sense to those who haven't seen it. It seems that now the plot section has about 21 words excess. Can somebody trim it? Due to my recent addition, I don't think I'm a very good person for this. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Image on Facebook

Hi,

As you know Facebook uses Wikipedia content for its pages. However the image on the page for The Matrix is broken. The solution is to change the image, after which Facebook will take over the new image after a day or so. But I couldn't find any other images of the The Matrix poster and I don't want to vandalize the article by changing the image to something else. Maybe deleting the image and putting it back would also work, but it would have to be deleted long enough for Facebook to check the page for changes. So I guess the best solution would be to re-upload the image.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!

(https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Matrix/113401482006986) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.136.112 (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's simply irrelevant to us. Try contacting Facebook and see if they can fix it on their end; maybe they need to re-scrape the WP page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Larry/Lana Wachowski

Since I can't do it myself (since the article is semi-protected), would it be possible to write Larry (Lana) and Andy Wachowski instead of Larry and Andy Wachowski? It would give the opportunity to both keep the name Larry, with which Lana was credited for the movie, and to show respect for her by using her (now) actual name.

If you have any ideas/suggestions, don't hesitate to mention them!

Colariboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colariboo (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The matter has already been discussed thoroughly both here and at the Film Project. It is not disrespectful to reflect history in any shape or form. It is however disrespectful to history and the purpose of the encyclopedia to retroactively alter history based on one person's feelings, whoever they are. And no indication has been given that it even does that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ehh, nevermind, re-read Wikipedia policy. Sorry.75.185.198.118 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I dare say that the name on the article should reflect the name of the person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcquiesceLife (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I dare say that it's been discussed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede section

Dear editors/contributors,

Lede section is now passably an overview of the entire article, but it still lacks some coverage on its production part. Lede section should contain 4 paragraphs at most, meaning that we still have room for one left. I am trying to read and summarize the production section and put it in the lede, but I must say that I'm not very knowledgable regarding that section. Should any editors feel that they can summarize it adequately, please do so.

Also, it seems that the reception part has a wide variety of critiques, and it's hard to pin down what they agree on and summarize it in lede. I feel that the current version works OK, except for a few statement in bold text below.

"Reviewers praised The Matrix for its innovative visual effects, high production values, and for bringing aspects of Hong Kong action cinema to a Hollywood blockbuster; however, the film's premise was frequently criticised for being derivative of earlier science fiction works."

For it being criticised for being derivative of earlier science fiction works, I have no problem with that, only the word 'frequently'. I don't think three mentions of its unoriginality can be counted as frequently, so I'm gonna reword that part.

I cannot find anything that say anything about its production value. I found only one mention of its production, and it's not it. And for "bringing aspects of Hong Kong action cinema to a Hollywood blockbuster" part, I don't think the quotes say that either. It says that the Matrix is an "ingenious" blend of Hong Kong action cinema, innovative visual effects and an imaginative vision. I didn't check the source directly, only things that's been said in the article. If the sources do say those things, I suggest you bring the quote here too, as lede section should summarize what we say here, not what the source says. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, if we ultimately have to take out "high production value" and "bringing aspects of Hong Kong action cinema", I have something else we can put in. Two reviewers said it was a hokum, one said it was tripe. (You can use search function on hokum and tripe to locate the quotes.) All go the same way that it's non-sense and trite.

William Gibson said it was "an innocent delight". Timeout said it was "entertainingly ingenious". Both go the same way to say that it was fun. Ian Nathan said that it was about "pure experience", which go about the same way, like 'you gotta watch it and enjoy.'

Andrew O'Hehir and M. Night Shyamalan praised their passion.

All above might have enough common opinion to be summarized in lede. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"I cannot find anything that say anything about its production value."

I added the phrase "production values" as a concise way of summarising the technical aspects that were praised and received award wins/nominations - VFX, editing, production design.

My apologies for the late reply. I've been away for a week. Anyway, I think the word "value" here is the problem. It's misleading. When people see value, they're usually reminded of monetary cost or something like that. Game of Thrones has high production value = it has high cost of production. I don't think that's your intented message here. If you replace "production value" with "cinematography", it would be more appropriate. As "art of motion picture" covers VFX, editting and production design. It's the word you're looking for. Would you like to edit this part or would you let me? Anthonydraco (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "bringing aspects of Hong Kong action cinema to a Hollywood blockbuster":

You're right that none of the featured quotations currently support that assertion (though the Empire and Salon reviews both mention John Woo as one of the movie's influences, and Roger Ebert's review says it "borrows the gravity-defying choreography of Hong Kong action movies"). But in my experience, over the years it is something for which the movie has been praised, so perhaps we should add quotations from those reviews/retrospectives that make such positive comparisons? For example, Total Film's review (not currently mentioned in the article) includes the comment, "it takes far more than eye-massaging effects to make action sequences this spectacular; which is why the Wachowskis called in Jet Li's fight choreographer Yuen Woo Ping to inject a bit of authenticity" - though perhaps that's not the most explicit example that could be quoted.

Well, I mean no offense, but regarding the Matrix being praised for "bringing HK action into Hollywood" thing, which is from your experience, could be disagreed by someone else who heard it differently. The problem here is that although you do have sources, you do not exactly say what the sources say. Ebert compared but did not praise. (Or he did, but you did not mention it in the article.) The other quote from Total Film says it was spectacular, but that's a lone opinion among the crowd, which makes it indistinguishable from others and shouldn't be given the limited space of lede. If you want to say The Matrix brought HK action in, I think it's probably OK, but I don't think you can say The Matrix's praised for that. Not without more sourced praises. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, admittedly I've also come across plenty who reckon that the action doesn't stand up to Woo's films' gunplay and the cast's combat doesn't compare to that of trained martial arts performers, so maybe a balanced overview would have to mention that it's something that was criticised as well as praised.

I have no opinion in this regard, if you want to please do. But again, if it's a lone opinion among the crowd, I don't think it should be in the lede. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which brings something else to mind - the film's premise was either praised as intriguing, or dismissed as shallow and familiar to any SF fan; and the action was either praised as being extremely impressive, or as (Roger Ebert's review) dismissed as a distraction from an intriguing premise. The fact that so many critics either praised or criticised one or both of these aspects means it's hard to avoid falling into lazy "some said... while others said..." patterns when trying to describe a critical consensus. (However, Wikipedia:WEASEL says that phrases like that are acceptable in the lead section as long as they're supported by the quotations in the Reception section.) --Nick R^Talk 20:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We can really say that without being weasel. We can say that "Critiques on The Matrix's action scenes are divided. Reviews that criticize its action either praise it for its entertainment or regard it an overlong and trite distraction." Or something similar. It shows that we've read and processed the data. Same goes for the premise. I think the wording here: "The film's premise was either praised as intriguing, or dismissed as shallow and familiar" sounds good enough with some sources to back it up, but don't mention the fans. And would you like to word this part yourself or would you let me? Anthonydraco (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

An aside thing but since you both seem to be working to improve the article (and really this film's article should be up to GA status), if you can find me a youtube clip or something of a scene from the film featuring bullet time or a behind the scenes thing about bullet time, I'd be able to grab it, edit it to a short length and include it in the article as a demonstration of the effect instead of that random image of Neo from the lobby scene which fails NFC. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Blake, will these work? Rooftop scene, with Agent dodging bullets, and Neo dodging bullets: [[1]]. Behind the scene, containing Trinity's crane kick (the first bullet time moment in history) and 'Neo vs Smith' gun brawl: [[2]] Anthonydraco (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I took a look, the behind the scenes video is good but the subtitles make it unusable. It might have to be the bullet dodging scene from te first clip. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have another side question for you too. After things are generally done, where do we ask for help from language guild? The one that reviews English usage. And after that, what's next if we want to push this one to GA? You seem familiar with this process, Blake. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You request a copy edit of the language at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Other than that you just need to make sure everything is sourced and that the sources are reliable and I think it should be OK. I've added the video, but I haven't read the Bullet Time section so the video caption might need rewriting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Franchise section still need more reference.

As the topic says, it needs more reference. It has only one so far. I've tried looking for some, but on the web, the summary of the Matrix Reloaded and the Matrix Rev are lacking. I can't find a review that summarize it well enough, short of the Matrix Reloaded/Matrix Revolution articles on Wikipedia themselves. The summary of The Animatrix is even more lacking. I know for a fact that The Final Flight of the Osiris was released with Dreamcatcher, as I saw it the first time myself then. But I cannot find the news announcing that release either.

I've also read somewhere outside the article that the Matrix Reloaded and Revolution were filmed in one shot, but released as two films. I do not recall where that came from either. The Matrix Reloaded and Revolution articles give no reference on its filming.

The games Enter the Matrix and The Path of Neo's review and the mention of its content shouldn't be difficult to find. I'll try to find one or two when I have time. But if anyone come across any good references on its franchise, I would appreciate citation or more info here. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The series' official website would have been a good source for that production info. Unfortunately, WB took it down a couple of years ago, and archive.org's copies of http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com don't seem to be working for me at the moment (not even the "3 million DVD sales" press release, as linked in the the references). Here is a website that claims to host the production notes provided to the press when Reloaded was released - but that site's obviously not a reliable source.

So since everything ever written about the sequels appears to have vanished from the World Wide Web ;-), perhaps film magazine articles from 2003 might make a better reference source! --Nick R^Talk 20:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you can reply too. Finally. Welcome. Well, since you're here, I have to tell you that it will be impossible to find those magazines you mention on my own. Especially not a physical copy or anything like that. I definitely don't know what mag you're talking about, either. I live in a country that don't use English daily, and no one really publish anything in English. So, if you can tag the article for us, I'll appreciate it. Anyway, if you're not content in replying any of my questions in your talk page or above, kindly don't feel offend when I reword any part you want to keep. I've told you about it before, and I have been waiting respectfully long enough. Sorry that I can't wait forever, because waiting too long has led this article where it is now. No one cares about it anymore but us. But I guess I shouldn't complain that much. At least, you're not obstinate unlike people at some article. Anyway, thanks for finding the ref for us. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the ref. I've checked the page. We still lack a bit of summaries on Reloaded, Revolution and Animatrix. I will come back later today after I see a doctor. I'm not feeling very well at the moment. Oh, and I am going to rearrage some prose in the second paragraph in lede. The production design should come before any production and its effect on Hollywood and other films, IMO. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional reference on Path of Neo game: [3]

Additional reference on Enter the Matrix: [4] <- This one say in the first page that Enter the Matrix is about Ghost and Niobe. Might work better to support the statement we put in the article. Another reference is: [5]

>it will be impossible to find those magazines you mention on my own. Especially not a physical copy or anything like that. I definitely don't know what mag you're talking about, either.

What I was saying was that link rot and the removal of the official website has meant that a lot of information about the Matrix films is no longer available from reliable online sources; however, that material might still be found in back issues of film magazines like Empire and Sight & Sound. --Nick R^Talk 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So where do we get them? Are you finding the physical copies? Oh, and I forgot to tell you that some I've dug a bit and found some reviews that mention the plot, but they don't cover every statement we've made. Those are tagged as citation needed.Anthonydraco (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

>Oh, and I am going to rearrage some prose in the second paragraph in lede. The production design should come before any production and its effect on Hollywood and other films, IMO.

Although I agree with your expansion of the lead section so that it could be a better summary of the article as a whole, I disagree with the inclusion of that production design example of the way the film visually represents its two different settings. I'm going to remove it, for two reasons. 1) At the moment, the notability of bullet time and the fight scenes are established with phrases like "the film is known for" and "was influential on subsequent films". But the sentence about production design just sits there in the middle of the paragraph with no context at all. 2) IMO the coloured tints and patterned sets are details that are interesting enough to mention in the Production Design section, but they are far too minor to be worth mentioning right at the very start of the article. The films The Wizard of Oz and A Matter of Life and Death make memorable switches between colour and b&w to distinguish two realities, and those films' articles rightfully mention this in their lead sections. In comparison, it's not clear why The Matrix's patterned sets and colour tints are dramatic or noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lead. So I'll remove it. --Nick R^Talk 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, but that means the production design part is not covered. I added in there in hope that you would have something to add, and for the sake of coverage. But since we're not covering Music section, which is also a part of production section, and a good article like Prometheus doesn't cover such section either, I guess it's fine to remove it. Cheers. And thank you for talking. No sarcasm intended. It's better for the project this way. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Some dead links and unreliable sources

Topic. We need to replace or remove them eventually. I made a section here to keep track of them. Please use the edit menu to see the actual ref. For now, I'm busy checking the rest. I've reached #49. Will continue later. I'm done checking. Nothing else but the ones listed that went dead.

Dead ref:

This one seems easy to fix. Can we just remove the link and refer to the TV episode itself? It might not be accessible anymore, but the TV episode existed. Suggestion?

IIRC the only reason the link to the ITV.com page on The South Bank Show was originally included in the reference was because it mentioned the episode's airdate. Yes, as far as I know the documentary itself can still be cited without that page. --Nick R^Talk 17:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me with something then? Do you come across anything else that list The Matrix as one of the greatest sci-fi of all time? If that link is gone, we will have to replace it to keep the statement that The Matrix is one. I don't want to change it, since The Matrix deserves to be one. But with only two ref, we can't say "Many regards The Matrix as." We can only say "some", but that's weasel. I'll try to find another list, in case that ref is beyond recall. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the ITV link and kept the rest. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable: Seems self-published. It's a blog/journal.

Nick, do you know any particular reason why we keep this ^ ? Anthonydraco (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if reliable: Not sure about the site's reliability.

<- Ebert's Journal, but a journal nonetheless. It's published on Chicago Sun-Times, though. Reliable?

Nick, one more thing, should I consider these ^ reliable? They're questionable. Your opinion is appreciated. And if you have time, can you check if the rest of the ref work/reliable as well?Anthonydraco (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Did some homework. It's reliable, as it seems to be published under Chicago Sun-Times and is subjected to editorial. That leaves the other one that I'm still unsure about. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential reference for Casting (and anything else, really)

http://filmscouts.com/SCRIPTs/matinee.cfm?Film=matrix&File=casting http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/matinee.cfm?Film=matrix&File=locations Old, doesn't seem very reliable. -_- But it's all I have ATM.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,101074,00.html This one has nothing to do with The Matrix, but instead The Matrix Reloaded, should, by a minute possibility, we are interested in doing The Matrix Reloaded.

http://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/the-matrix/18719082 Casting Trinity. Reliable?

http://www.cinemareview.com/main.asp?movieid=049902 can link to http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=533 Contains A LOT of information about Casting Trinity and Wire Fu, training. Filming location and sets info: http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=537 If only I could prove that it's reliable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/business/the-matrix-invented-a-world-of-special-effects.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Supports the statement in Franchise section saying that the sequels included more elaborate SFX.

Found it! http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/24/movies/philosophers-draw-on-a-film-drawing-on-philosophers.html Confirms the statement about Simulacra and Simulacrum being a required reading! Woot! Used and placed in their respective places. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Production design section - Powerhouse Museum reference

Anthonydraco recently added this Powerhouse Museum page as a reference for discussion of the green code. Although it seems an informative page (particularly when it points out the specific people who designed the typeface and opening titles), I'm a bit wary of relying on it too much. I get the impression that whoever wrote it drew from longstanding versions of this very Wikipedia page. It's things like the way the page is structured, and some of the phrases that it uses, that give me that impression. Examples:

• going straight from discussion of monochrome monitors to Ghost in the Shell
• "DISTINCTIVE green colour"
• That webpage says: "resembles the opening credits of the 1995 Japanese cyberpunk film, Ghost in the Shell, which had a strong influence on the Matrix."
  • This Wikipedia page says: "...strongly reminiscent of similar computer code in the film Ghost in the Shell, an acknowledged influence on the Matrix series."
• That page says, "a custom created alphabet incorporating numbers and symbols from several alphabets and cultures and made up of mirror images of half-width Japanese katakana characters and Western Latin letters and numerals."
  • This Wikipedia page has said for a long time, "This code includes mirror images of half-width kana characters and Western Latin letters and numerals."
• That page says: "It is sometimes also referred to as 'green rain', and was developed as a way of representing the activity of the virtual reality environment of The Matrix, on screen."
  • That is a lot like the way the article Matrix digital rain says: "or sometimes green rain... a way of representing the activity of the virtual reality environment of the Matrix on screen".

So I'd watch out, because this could be an example of what xkcd called "citogenesis"! --Nick R^Talk 13:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. I thought there was only the section about bullet time that was circular sourcing. I was careful not to quote that part. It clearly marked that they took it from us, though, but I noted that they didn't credit us anywhere else. Do you recall the time period of those long-standing version you think they used? Anthonydraco (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, they seem to cite their sources too. Courtesy from this, or that. People from here, from there. Those are probably pretty safe, IMO. Anthonydraco (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for current description of Agent Smith

(quote) Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith: A sentient "Agent" program of the Matrix whose purpose is to destroy Zion and stop humans from getting out of the Matrix. Unlike other agents, he has ambitions to free himself from his duties. (/quote)

Having seen the movie, and the sequels, I can tell you that describing Agent Smith as a character with "ambitions to free himself from his duties" is at best *woefully* incorrect, and at worst wiki-vandalism. Agent Smith is the ONLY agent with an individual personality, in the movie. He, unlike all other agents, actually FEELS. Disgust. Rage. He thinks for himself, removing his earpiece-slash-control-device, something he keeps hidden from his peers and bosses (when caught doing this once another agent asks him 'what are you doing' -- presumably because it cannot fathom what possible reason could ever motivate Smith to do such a strange unheard-of thing). Smith has goals of his own, feelings of his own, outside the dictates of his bosses. All of the humans in the matrix (except renegade crackers like Morpheus/Trinity/etc who have learned to escape the illusion and think for themselves) are sentient, but are trapped by their elite controllers, the programs that *really* run things. Interestingly, most of the *programs* in the matrix, including all agents but Smith (who alone thinks and feels for himself), are also trapped by the same elite controllers. To be an agent, you have to be a sentient program, just as to be a human battery, you have to be sentient. The matrix, run by the Architect and the other elites, is therefore a trap for both utility-programs like Agents as well as battery-sources like most of the humans. Smith does not merely have "ambitions to free himself from his duties" as an agent, he has ambitions to become one of the elite controllers, and make the world in his image. Cf, Matrix Reloaded, wherein Smith stops using his earpiece entirely, asserting his freedom from the control of the AI-elites (at the same time Neo has also finally learned to control the matrix... asserting *his* freedom from the control of the AI-elites). Cf, Matrix Revolutions, wherein Smith starts trying to take over the world, infecting matrix denizens with a rootkit-worm that rewrites their source-code and/or brains so that they become Smith-clones (ditto for Neo -- who strikes up an alliance with the current AI-elites offering to rid them of the Smith-virus if they will share the earth-and-matrix-sim with unfettered humans).

So, uh, long backstory out of the way, what do I actually suggest for the description? How about this:

(revision) Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith: A sentient "Agent" program of the Matrix whose nominal purpose (per his sentient-program bosses) is to destroy Zion and stop humans from getting out of the Matrix. Unlike all other agents, he has ambitions to escape his controllers -- the dark parallel to Neo. (/revision) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I would make some changes to your proposed description. First, I'd take out the part about his "bosses", since they're not really part of the story and their existence and nature are unclear. If we have to mention who is instructing the agents, I think we should simply refer to it/them as "the system". Second, I'd tweak the part about the agents' purpose to make it more general – in essence, they're programmed to maintain the Matrix and fight rebels. Keeping people from getting out is only part of their job, and as programs, it might be confusing to imply that they'd actually take part in the destruction of Zion. The bit about Smith being Neo's dark counterpart seems like an accurate observation, but it would be helpful if we could find a source to avoid accusations of WP:OR.

How about this:

"Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith: One of the sentient "Agent" programs intended to protect the status quo of the Matrix from human rebels. Unlike the other agents, Smith has grown disillusioned with the system and has ambitions to escape it – a dark parallel to Neo."

—Flax5 22:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, 74.192.84.101, I agree with Smith's being Neo's negative, like the Oracle said in Revolution, but I think the rest of it is original research and speculation, like him wanting to be an elite controller. Smith's real ambition, whatever it is, is not stated anywhere in the movies. He could merely be copying himself all over the Matrix simply because he is mad/sociopathic or because he had nothing else to do. Without a reliable source, we can't say his ambition is to be an elite controller or anything else. What we do know about him is that he wants to get out of the Matrix from his monologue with Morpheus. And Smith's being Neo's negative is not stated in this movie. This Smith = Negative Neo thing did not exist until they made Reloaded, is not mentioned here, and is revealed fully only in Revolution by the Oracle. If we want to add this, it belongs in Revolution, because it is openly mentioned there, with the actual movie as the prime source. But in this movie, he is what he currently is, an Agent with personality who wants to get out. We're writing article about this film, so we must limit the article's scope and character's development up to the end of this film. Full Smith's character development belongs more to his own article or the article of overall Matrix franchise.

Building on Flax's suggestion, "Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith: One of the sentient "Agent" programs intended to protect the status quo of the Matrix from human rebels. Unlike the other agents, Smith has grown disillusioned with the system and has ambitions to escape it – a dark parallel to Neo." <--- Remove this part as it is not in this movie. Limit the scope of the article and character to the end of this film only. This is not about the Matrix franchise. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New article section/layout?

I've overhauled the Production section, added significant amount of info on Legacy section, and added references, among others. But as you can see, currently, the Production section doesn't read very well.

I started the section that way to keep it related to the Production from the start. Without the statement about WB's decision followed by how it was made, the first two paragraphs became more about the Wachowskis' history before they made The Matrix instead of the Production. I decided to keep it this way, but that made the use of Past Perfect Tense necessary. The problem is, it reads horrible. Should we create a subsection of 'Pre-production' instead and arrange it into chrolological order? I'm thinking of new arrangement for the article:

Pre-production: Contains how Bound and Assassins affect WB's decision in convincing WB to make The Matrix, and how it came to be that the brothers go to direct.

Production design: Current info, plus new info on how it used noir/darker tone. Should we merge the Influence section into this part? (For now I'm content to keep the Influence section separated, as the info in influence section didn't exactly say how it affect production design.)

Filming: The actual filming, about the scenes trying to create generic American city onward. But I noted that the info here is sparse, and many statements in this section are still unsourced. T_T (_ _#)

What do you guys think? Anthonydraco (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've been thinking a little too much about this, and I think that we need to come up with a better way to break it down. I think the structure that you speak of is a-okay, and I'm sure there's stuff we can find on it, but the key to growing this to what it needs to be is by figuring out what aspects of the mythology, the points of the film, the philosophy, etc., we want to see covered. We're probably going to have to branch out into sub-articles on those things, but once we know where we're going, we can start looking closer at what books and sources we need. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2013

Please change her name from Larry to Lana. And also the reference to the "brothers". He is a she now, and she is referenced by this name in the main article about her and her brother. 88.88.138.192 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that when she made the move, she was male; in her article, we correctly refer to her current gender and use feminine pronouns, but since this article refers strictly to work she did while male, we retain the male name and gender. This has been discussed on both this page and in general, and consensus is as currently shown in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

"23th Saturn Awards". Obviously needs changing to "23rd". 95.148.186.90 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Was it not green in 1999?

There are some old posteres and trailers of the movie illustrating the matrix world as the real one, that is not green. Is there any edition of the film without that greeny effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.145.242 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matrixism
• Talk:The_Matrix/Archive#RfC
  • There was also an RfC for this issue that I am unable to find, but the above link refers to it
• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Precedents/Deleted#Matrixism
• and of course the talk archives for this page, Talk:New religious movement, and Talk:List of religions Philwelch 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

}}

Larry/Lana Wachowski

It seems this issues has been resolved on The Wachowskis page, which uses Lana. There was an RfC there [[6]] which clearly came out in favor of Lana. Please explain why you think it shoud be different on this page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be Lana here too. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

From the documentation on {{tl:Infobox film}}: "A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made." At the time the movie was made, Lana was still known as and was credited as Larry. Therefore, as per the documentation for the infobox, and the consensus that must exist for that documentation to state as such, Larry Wachowski would be appropriate in this particular case. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As an addition, in the actual movies the writers and directors of the movies were credited as "The Wachowski Brothers". I think attempts have been made to have that listed in the infobox, however, people like changing that as well. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enoughMorgan Leigh | Talk 07:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Another peer review

I requested a peer review a few weeks ago, and the article has been reviewed again finally. In case no one has seen the notice at the top of the talk page, here's the link to the review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Matrix/archive2

If any editor would like to help, the review should prove useful. Also consult the to-do list in the yellow frame at the top of the page. The Filming and Pre-production need particular attention. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Is this film really American-Australian? A studio in Australia was used, but country of filming is different from the nationality of the film. Star Wars was partly filmed in Tunisia, that does not make it a Tunisian film!203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but Village Roadshow Picture is an Australian company. Star Wars didn't use a company in Tusinia. They just used a studio there, and The Matrix and Star Wars differ in that. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)