Smith only ever says that thei very first Matrix was designed to be perfect, a paradise so to speak. And that human beings' minds kept rejecting it. He does not say there were only two Matrices.
"I was asking a valid question of the members of this site. Even at 7500 posts here, there's still things I need the answer to. It wasn't part of the review, merely a question."
If you think I am stupid enough not to notice your derogatory tone when you say "Oh, and the Merovingian and the Trainman. Huh? What do they do? And why is the Oracle a different person (presumably the actress wanted too much money, or died)?" then you have underestimated me. Don't deny that you hated these two characters' roles, and don't deny that it's because you didn't understand them. If you were really innocently trying to find out what in fact their purposes were, wouldn't you have asked in a more simple way, such as "What purpose do the Trainman and the Merovingian serve?" Please. Your tone shows through even with type only.
Next up, let's deal with the whole "nit-picking" thing. Since you have an obvious knack for cutting and pasting my posts and taking comments out of context, I think it's only fair to include the whole sentence instead of just one half of it. What I said, in its entirety, was:
"I believe this gives ME the right to nitpick with your posts, particularly your use of the "it's" contraction."
There it is, in plain sight. If you want an answer to your question, "Really? So what did this mean then?" you need look no further than the END OF THE SENTENCE! I was not referring to the Oracle subject as me nit-picking, but my questioning you on your use of the it-is contraction, from another post, something which you objected to earlier. The point I was trying to make, and it's quite clear you never got it the first time, was that if you are allowed to call someone on their mis-stating the facts regarding how the actress who played the Oracle died (in reality from "complications resulting from diabetes" and not simply from "diabetes" itself, since you can't die from diabetes) then I am entitled to call you on your use of the English language.
"I just have a far better understanding of medicine than you do, apparently. You cannot die of diabetes, just as you cannot die from AIDS*."
Touchee. And I, apparently, have a better understanding of English. You make your challenges in the name of medical truth wherever you see fit, and I'll make mine in the name of grammatical correctness wherever I see fit. And besides, most people would say she died of diabetes anyway, just like if I had a friend who in reality died because of an opportunistic infection caused by AIDS, I would tell people he/she died of AIDS, because it's simple, and it lets people know enough of the truth without me coming across as a pompous fill-in-the-blank.
Now let us once again move on to the technical aspects of the film itself. The reason we remain with the defense of Zion until it is over before moving to Neo's plight is simple if you question what the movie would be like if it were interspersed. To split up the battle of the Dock would have greatly reduced its impact, a fact I'm sure you won't identify with because you didn't like the movie anyway, but nevertheless this is the reason. The directors DID divide it up somewhat by interspersing scenes from the other significant subplot, that of Niobe and Morpheus attempting to sneak past the sentinels and return to Zion to fire their EMP.
The same reason applies to Neo's epic final battle with Smith. If after plunging hundreds of feet into the air and breaking through a cement wall into a building, we were forced to abandon the two opponents while we went back to see what was happening in Zion, we would rapidly lose interest and cease to care what happens to Neo, since the battle would not be presented in its entirety, from start to finish. There's a little thing called momentum that you have to consider when editing a movie together, and such a battle - which the audience has presumably waited through two movies to see - absolutely MUST NOT be fettered when finally delivered to us. Matrix Revolutions has two major battles, and we need to see them both presented to us uninterrupted so we are able to witness the buildup to each of their individual climaxes.
I think you and I have been left alone in this thread to bicker amongst ourselves. But, as the tagline for a not-that-bad movie states, "Everything that has a beginning has an end." Or perhaps, "The purpose of life is to end" is more pertinent here. Who knows such things? Only the Oracle.
Read the article. And the Neon is still a Neon here in Detroit.
