I still don't get what surprised you there since Zion is mentioned in the first movie while he doesn't either destroy the Matrix nor frees humanity there. So it must have happen in some way elsewhere and it does in 2 and 3. I found it quite logical that he would visit Zion, that the machines would attack Zion and that he would continue to try to destroy the Matrix and free humanity. The whole movie 2 and 3 actually show the way he goes to accomplish (or not accomplish) that while the prologue in 1 only introduces him as the protagonist who would go the way.
Sure, Zion was mentioned in the first movie. As a side-bar, almost a throwaway thing. But the meat of the story is about the drive to free all of humanity from the Marix. In Matrix 2/3 that element entirely disappears and the "resolution" is some sort of truce between the humans and the machines... that doesn't jibe at all with the "destroy the Matrix" idea, IMO.
Anyway... not trying to change anyone's mind here. This is obviously pretty subjective. All I can say is that to me, it's very clear that Matrix 2/3 represent a substantially different (albeit related) story than Matrix 1. If anyone disagrees, well, so be it.
> Sure, Zion was mentioned in the first movie. As a side-bar, almost a throwaway thing.
A throwaway thing? What?
This is where humanity lives outside the Matrix. This is the dialogue:
NEO
Zion?
TANK
If this war ended tomorrow, Zion
is where the party would be.
NEO
It's a city?
TANK
The last human city. The only
place we got left.
NEO
Where is it?
TANK
Deep underground. Near the
earth's core, where it's still
warm. You live long enough, you
might even see it.
Further on Zion is mentioned in connection with the warning and later in the even more important topic of the access codes and coming from Tanks mouth:
TANK
We can't let that happen, Trinity.
Zion is more important than me.
Or you, or even Morpheus
Or Agent Smiths:
AGENT SMITH
Once Zion is destroyed, there is
no need for me to be here. Do you
understand? I need the codes. I
have to get inside Zion. You have
to tell me how.
I mean seriously. I have the feeling you did not pay attention which is the feeling I get from most of the people who are an the hate train. It seems like those people live off the hype for the fight scenes and visual impact of the first movie which none of the others could deliver because the revolution has happened already. But all movies after Matrix had that problem too and it doesn't say anything about the progression of the story of Matrix.
> But the meat of the story is about the drive to free all of humanity from the Marix. In Matrix 2/3 that element entirely disappears and the "resolution" is some sort of truce between the humans and the machines... that doesn't jibe at all with the "destroy the Matrix" idea, IMO.
It doesn't disappear. It is the main part of the story of those movies. The decisions need to do are just about that. This is what is important and the result is a consequence of what happened along the way.
You should really consider watching those movies again because I think you've missed a lot there.
I haven't watched the move 100 times, but there is something I think isn't addressed. If the "war" ended tomorrow, and all the humans are freed, freed into what? You wind up with billions of naked hungry adults wandering around, no food, no sunlight, all going to die quickly.
You should really consider watching those movies again because I think you've missed a lot there.
I have watched The Matrix probably 100+ times (and the sequels a good 30 or more times each). I really doubt that I'm the one who's "missing something" here.
Anyway, if you see it differently, then you see it differently. That's totally acceptable. Two people can watch the same movie(s) and reach different interpretations. Nothing unusual about that.
I have no opinion but I find it interesting that you started this conversation by saying:
"I can't see how anyone ever thought..."
and end the conversation with:
"Nothing unusual about two people reaching different interpretations. "
Whether the Matrix was intended as 1 movie or 3 movies is inconsequential in the grand scheme, but seeing this side of human nature is kind of interesting and somewhat amusing.
"No one could possibly watch the Matrix and think that..."
I'm just saying I personally don't see the thought process, and the interpretation(s) where the movies are a cleanly connected, smooth, linear, contiguous narrative. I'm not saying that such processes and interpretations can't exist, hence
"Two people can watch the same movie(s) and reach different interpretations."
Dude, just stop. Your attempt to refute Kranar citing you contradicting yourself is laughable, and (speaking as one who has no horses in this race) Krasnol pretty convincingly demonstrated that you were wrong. That you claim to have watched The Matrix more than 100 times makes you look worse in this context, not better.
