I don't even know how that story would start. But maybe that's how Morpheus got convinced that Neo was the One. He reminded him of someone important from his youth; only that Coach Conor was not this young, and definitely not with that lack of propensity to get drunk and ruin everything on a regular basis. He noticed that Neo didn't even eat pizza. So, this obviously wasn't Conor.

But still, that face... it was the same face, Morpheus was certain of it. It had to mean something. It had to be a sign - a glitch in the Matrix, the code of the One warping reality wherever it occurred - introduced so early into his life by whatever powers that governed their reality, ensuring that one day, when he saw him, when he was ready, he would know.

Cloud Atlas is difficult, because the book is difficult, but I love it and find it really inspiring. And Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks!

But...Conor wasn't Neo yet...my head hurts...still, Jamal rejected rules and authority. Hmmm.

---

I don't even know how that story would start.

---

Web of lies! You always know. It's the question that drives us, after all, and you do the same thing I do - make up stories to find the answers. Because seeing the pieces refuse to fit together really is like a splinter in the mind.

I finally figured it out. You, Anakin, are the Oracle.

---

duuude I just discovered that Michael B. Jordan was Jamal in Hardball. D:

---

.... what??? :D

fate and movie business, it seems, are not without a sense of irony...

---

fate and movie business, it seems, are not without a sense of irony...

---

Just imagine... The Matrix was at its peak fame when Hardball was filmed. He was probably excited that he got to act with Neo, and would never have thought that one day he'd get a shot at playing Morpheus. :'D

New requirements for a future Matrix film:
1. the Wachowskis
2. Hardball references

http://www.avclub.com/article/matrix-hacked-hollywood-upgrading-american-action--254047

but once more, the sequels are detested.

At the same time, most people are superficial. Like the writer of this article who goes ' Reeves’ Matrix stuntman David Leitch went on to direct Reeves in John Wick and produce John Wick: Chapter 2'. First of all this is inaccurate: Leitch wasn't Reeves' stunt double. Leitch wasn't even part of the first Matrix movie, he was only in the sequels. Second, 'Reeves' Matrix stuntman was Chad Stahelski, who directed both John Wick movies, but he's not mentioned in the article at all.
... and all this is a few google searches away. Less than five minutes.

... no wonder these people didn't understand the Matrix sequels :|

No wonder people don't understand excellence (as Frank Zappa pointed out, they're not used to excellence).

And the idea that the sequels show much more complexity in some ways than the first film, much more interdependence, much more doubt - and that Revolutions ends, not with a glorious destruction of all the evil machines, but with Neo's compassion and understanding of the need for self-sacrifice for the good of all beings - including machines? - yeah, no wonder indeed.

Most of Reloaded's plot honestly went completely over my head. To this day I think I've only seen it three times, because the disappointment of that first time made me resent it for ages, and I only watched - and was surprised to love - Revolutions because my family got free tickets. It's perhaps only this past year that I'm finally finding out just what Reloaded was all about. I got some inkling of that with the game Path of Neo (which I loved to bits), because it delved deeper into that world the Wachowskis had built and I got a sense of just how vast and complex it was, with all the little details that made it so easily imaginable as a real place.

In short, I think a lot of the sequel hate comes from people who were kids at that time and were simply not old enough to understand the movies, and that anger and disappointment has lasted to this day, not because of hatred so much as because of their love for the first film which the sequels couldn't, to their minds at that time, live up to.

Whereas I note for instance the generally positive critical reviews that the sequels got from critics who would have been long out of their teenage years and understood words like 'ergo' and 'concordantly' and 'sedulously'.

No, nothing could live up to the first film - first film, first novel, first album - but especially with the Wachowskis.

And "what do you want?" "Peace" is exactly the opposite of what many action-film fans want to hear.

... it still doesn't change the fact that most of the written stuff online today (reviews, blog posts, journalism, social media, you name it) suffers of superficiality ...
(then again, maybe it's my age typing ;) )

It was on a whim - The Matrix on TV again - that I decided to watch it again and understand it this time. I got hooked a few months before turning 40.

But I think it wasn't so much age in my case - it was the internet and the easy possibility to access background information and other peoples ideas. I would not have been able to understand it myself without hints and nudges from other people.

So, although this isn't linked to age it is closely linked to time - there just wasn't that easy way to communicate in 2003 compared to 2015.

---

there just wasn't that easy way to communicate in 2003 compared to 2015.

---

true, there wasn't social media at the time; but in 2004, when the Matrix 'hit' me, it send me searching online; it was the reason I discovered Keanu Reeves, IMDb and its message boards, fan forums, a site with essays which helped me understand the sequels, books related to the movies and/or referenced it it, and so much more...

It took some digging but the info was there, at least in late 2004, early 2005...
So I guess my point is it requires first of all willingness to search, to inform oneself, to communicate. The curious will look for answers. Others will just wait for the movie itself to serve them on a platter; and the Wachowskis do anything but that.

For those interested, the essays are here. And the first one was published on 20 May 2003

http://blogs.wylfing.net/coronas/the-matrix-reloaded-explained/
http://blogs.wylfing.net/coronas/the-matrix-revolutions-explained/

well, in 2004 I had other things to worry about. I just didn't have free space on my mind for the effort to unearth The Matrix for myself. But I'm glad I found the time later on :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3xe1XY7akg&feature=youtu.be

https://www.cnet.com/news/lego-ninjago-movie-simon-whiteley-matrix-code-creator/

The comments. XD

there's something bothering me, though...
the whole ' The "human as a battery" thing is wrong but in their defense, the Wachowsk sibs originally wanted to make it "human brains as nodes in a neural network" (which is a plausible concept) but the studio people didn't understand the concept so they had to dumb it down and make it implausible in the process.'.

I've seen other threads too, on quora and other places; everyone keeps saying that it was 'neural network' in the 'original script' but in all the scripts I've found online (1996 draft, 1997 draft, 1998 shooting script), the 'coppertop' battery thing was always there...

It's true that the whole story works a lot better if one considers that premise; I've first read it in Brian Takle's essays, but then all over the net. I just can't find where the Wachovskis mentioned it. And without an original source... afraid it's just another internet myth. :|