If the humans scorched the sky to block out the sun so the machines wouldn't work, how did the humans think that humans were going to survive. The sun is, after all, ultimately the source of all our power.

I think that was one of the main weaknesses in the plot.

The business with the phones seemed very confusing as well.

But it's not 100% needed. With dietary supliments we can regain the lost vitamins from lack of sun light. The planet doesn't need to have sun light shine directl;y upon the dirt to warm the planet. All it has to do is warm it up. Completly possible would just take a crap load of readjustment in order to live.

True. I've taken up gardening as a hobby. There are a great number of plants that thrive in indirect sunlight or total shade. Many of them are food and herb plants.

Actually, the weak point was that humans were supposed to be used as an energy source -- which is ridiculous. The efficiency with which we convert our food into energy is horrible (which is why our excrement is such good food for certain unsavoury organisms.) The machines would have gained way more energy just burning the food in high-temperature furnaces rather than feeding it to humans and then trying to collect "body heat". Besides, if sunlight were illuminating the earth enough to heat it up, the machines wouldn't be stranded in any case; for example, they could build heat collectors or infrared-wavelength solar cells. They could feed off wind or tidal energy. They could use geothermal energy. They could even send powerplants into space to directly capture sunlight and transmit it to ground rectennas as microwaves. Not even mentioning energy sources such as fission or fusion (which will ostensibly be a viable option in a couple of decades, and certainly by 2100.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

I believe the energy being created was somehow "upgraded" by a specialised form of fussion. Which leaves it open to be argued as feaseble. Maybe the AI's didn't want to extinguish there creators but saw that enslaving them would be enough and also render a usable energy.

Don't dis the Matrix...its a close second to star wars.

I liked Matrix. It was a fun movie. Of course, being an MST3K fan, every time Keanu Reeves would see something that totally bewildered his senses, my brothers and I would add in "Excellent!" or "Bogus...!" depending on his reaction.

Don't forget, "Whoa!"

Don't dis the Matrix...its a close second to star wars.

The Matrix (first one only) was stellar (despite its various plot holes).
Star Wars was a can of shit.

The Matrix (first one only) was stellar (despite its various plot holes).
Star Wars was a can of shit.
I agree 100% on the first Matrix, but the first Star Wars was pretty damned good too.

I agree 100% on the first Matrix, but the first Star Wars was pretty damned good too.

I didn't see it until I was in my twenties.
I might have a different opinion if I saw it when I was a kid.
I think most of the people who love it do so for nostaligia reasons.

I was never a fan of the matrix to many plot holes and the story wasn't that great but the effects and fights were good

I didn't see it until I was in my twenties.
I might have a different opinion if I saw it when I was a kid.
I think most of the people who love it do so for nostaligia reasons.

I saw the series in grade school and was unimpressed. Looking back, I thought that shit was cliched and simplistic before I knew what those words meant. Perhaps Lucas' persistent daddy-issues resound better with men, especially the men-children who grew up in the 80s, when everyone's parents were divorced. Perhaps Yoda's cloying pseudo-Zen knockoffs would seem wise to someone not being raised by a lapsed-Catholic-now-Buddhist. Perhaps someone more attuned to the princess idea would have found Leia to be a female worth imagining, I don't know - I was imagining myself as one of Royo or Howard's sorcerer-babes. But then, I can't put my finger on what the problem with the movies is. The special effects were innovative and state of the art, the dialog doesn't absolutely suck, and for the plot? Fantasy is a simplistic genre: even my beloved Conan, for all of Howard's realism, always ends up choosing the altruistic path and resolving all problems with his machismo or superior uncivilized cunning.

Still, for all that is great about it, and I do think that Star Wars is great fantasy, it's just bad sci-fi. I'm glad for real classics like Tron, the original Star Trek, Bladerunner, reruns of the 70s Battlestar Galactica and Alien.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/print.html

Actually, the weak point was that humans were supposed to be used as an energy source -- which is ridiculous. The efficiency with which we convert our food into energy is horrible (which is why our excrement is such good food for certain unsavoury organisms.)

Actually, I think the energy they were extracting was brain activity. The food tubes were just to keep the human batteries alive. That x 8 billion = lots of energy.

However, you're still probably right...the Matrix machines would be better off exterminating humans and using (for example) solar energy directly (they won't have the issues of space vacuum, they can zoom up there and build "solar collectors" all the way to Earth. Or whatever :)

It's a Sci-Fi movie so anything is possible. Let your imaginations run free and let the movies alone in trying to figure out how things are done. It only detracts from enjoying the movie.

I didn't see it until I was in my twenties.
I might have a different opinion if I saw it when I was a kid.
I think most of the people who love it do so for nostaligia reasons.
That could be part of it. I still remember going to the theature to see Star Wars and the sequels as a kid. A guy I know still has the darth vader lamp he got way back then to this day!

But nostalgia aside, I still say it's a pretty good movie. Who can forget the scene where Han Solo runs screaming down the hall and chases about twenty storm troopers away, until they suddenly realize they're running from one guy! Or the shocking revelation that the ultra-evil Darth Vader is actually Luke's father.

If the humans scorched the sky to block out the sun so the machines wouldn't work, how did the humans think that humans were going to survive. The sun is, after all, ultimately the source of all our power.

I think that was one of the main weaknesses in the plot.

The business with the phones seemed very confusing as well.

The original scientists knew how to remove the nanites from the air.
Too bad the machines killed them.
Its in the Animatrix.
The Second Renaissance Part I and II.


Actually, the weak point was that humans were supposed to be used as an energy source --

Yeah. That was a huge, gaping, mistake.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/print.html

From the article

The only male heroes who are allowed any testosterone are Klingons, because cultural diversity outweighs sexual correctness.

Hilarious!

My understanding is that there is the real 'blue' world out there and what we experience here in 'green' is just a simulation inside a huge computer. The 'green' world can be different than the 'blue' world, that is why we do not understand some of the things happening in the 'blue' world since all our experience is in the 'green' world. So for example, in reality humans could be very powerful and efficient energywise, but inside the simulation the human physiology (or laws of physics) is so that the human body is not so efficient.

So for example, in reality humans could be very powerful and efficient energywise, but inside the simulation the human physiology (or laws of physics) is so that the human body is not so efficient.
So you're saying that our understanding of physics is based upon the fact that we're in the Matrix. If we were in reality, we'd realize that a human being would make an excellent power source. Indeed, perhaps the machines deliberately twisted our understanding so that we would never suspect the truth.

That's an innovative approach!

My understanding is that there is the real 'blue' world out there and what we experience here in 'green' is just a simulation inside a huge computer. The 'green' world can be different than the 'blue' world, that is why we do not understand some of the things happening in the 'blue' world since all our experience is in the 'green' world. So for example, in reality humans could be very powerful and efficient energywise, but inside the simulation the human physiology (or laws of physics) is so that the human body is not so efficient.

Except that Morpheus, who has been enlightened by taking fun blue pills, explains the concept. If our understanding of physiology was altered by the machines, wouldn't he be immune, since he's not under their control?

Any ship that can float through the manipulation of gravity can leave Earth's atmosphere at will. The scene with the Nebuchadnezzar reaching the upper atmosphere and seeming to "run out" of something to keep it afloat, and falling to Earth, was rubbish.

Also, living robots wouldn't need this planet and could leave (having a.g. manipulation and all) and go into space where solar radiation would provide them all the power they needed.

Speaking of power-- that nonsense of "human bodies, combined with a form of fusion..." is also rubbish. The enslavement of humanity might serve a moral purpose to the robots, but being their source of power is baseless. Any robotic life that has total control of nano and macro technology can easily create power plants that run far more easily and deliver far more power than any combination of human bodies could ever hope to generate.

I always believed that the reason they should have used as to why the robots kept humanity in that state was because of some "creative" contribution that the human brain had on the matrix and that coupled with the "tables have turned" factor would have been FAR more believable that the "copertop" rationalization.

How about that whole business with releasing bodies from the living womb thing? The eyes, never having been used, could never see, no matter HOW much "stimulation" they received. Those eyes were shut for their entire life, the muscles never exercised, the vocal cords never trained and the eardrums never used would NEVER be able to work after the human body was awakened.

~String

I always believed that the reason they should have used as to why the robots kept humanity in that state was because of some "creative" contribution that the human brain had on the matrix and that coupled with the "tables have turned" factor would have been FAR more believable that the "copertop" rationalization.

How about that whole business with releasing bodies from the living womb thing? The eyes, never having been used, could never see, no matter HOW much "stimulation" they received. Those eyes were shut for their entire life, the muscles never exercised, the vocal cords never trained and the eardrums never used would NEVER be able to work after the human body was awakened.

Your theory on the reason for the enslavement of humanity is good. Isn't it possible that the humans only thought the purpose was power generation? Perhaps the machines didn't want to admit that they weren't as creative as humans and so fed them that BS power story.

I do agree with you about the newly hatched bodies. The only possible explanation would be that the pods were designed in such a way as to provide stimulation to the muscles and the neural feeds simulated natural sensory imput so well that the brain developed normally. This would only be the case if the pods were designed that way on purpose, perhaps by the humans before the war as a form of suspended animation?