Jump to content

Talk:The Matrix Resurrections/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Production section

@Freemanukem: you wrote over this section with a significantly inferior version rife with unreliable sources, unneeded information and repeated information. I would like you to restore the previous version please. Rusted AutoParts 22:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have to disagree. This version addresses the exit of Joel Silver from the picture; mentions the filming location in Germany; does not go into detail into Penn's script which has nothing to do with this film; and so on. I made sure the references are from publications with an editorial team for reliability. Freemanukem (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
We don’t need to know about concept artists returning, or previous collaborations. The Silver exit isn’t tied to Matrix itself so it’s not relevant, Penns script was in regards to prior attempts at a new Matrix movie, the ComingSoon source for Max Reimart isn’t reliable when in comparison to the Deadline and Variety sources used for everyone else, the way everything is written is sloppy, the previous version was concise and to the point without needlessly being wordy about it. The Germany filming cite can be added into the old version, but It must be restored.
@Masem:, thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 22:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Citing previous collaboration is very often done, for example check Avatar (2009 film) (a "good" article), which says "Composer James Horner scored the film, his third collaboration with Cameron after Aliens and Titanic." Silver was THE Matrix producer, he was the sole producer on the previous trilogy. His absence is almost on par with Lilly's in terms of change. Going into detail in Penn's script is not important because this is not his film. Why not keep the detail about his script for his film, should it get made. There was nothing concise about Penn's part, haha. Everything is open to criticism and improvement of course. Freemanukem (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I will say that the prior version (Rusted's) is a better base to build on, as the sourcing is more reliable and it avoids proseline. I do disagree that prior collabs are not important: eg I remember the one about Lana's collabs from Jupiter Rising spelled out in one of a THR or Variety article and if they are called out there, its fine for us to include. (It would not be appropriate if we were making that connection for the first time). We should go back to Rusted's and work in anything new that is RSed to that. --Masem (t) 23:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I have to disagree that the sourcing is better in that version. For example it says that filming will commence February 5 and cites this: https://www.bcnasf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PIC-COMMUNITY-OUTREACH-Flyer.pdf as it's source. This is a PDF ad by a casting agency. I wouldn't call this a reliable source at all. Does the agency have an editorial department? To me, it feels like a significant downgrade. Freemanukem (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Than swap it if you wish, here’s a cite that says the same thing from that casting call. But it still stands the previous version of the section was a much cleaner written section and should be restored. Rusted AutoParts 23:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
You think reporting on Max Riemelt being in the film is not reliable because Variety and Deadline did not report on it, but will happily accept a Movieweb report of a casting agency having the film's production start in its ad. If you want to be fair, you should also expect nothing short of Variety or Deadline reporting on it before it's accepted. Freemanukem (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I used it as an example to show the February 5 date could be found elsewhere than the PDF you took issue with. I am more stricter with casting citations because there’s a lot of different sites that make a lot of casting announcements that don’t get any mention from the higher up sites to help reinforce its accuracy. Every other actor on the page is cited with Deadline or Variety with the exception of Jonathan Groff who is cited by Collider, who have been reliable before. All I was getting at was if you didn’t like the PDF of the direct casting call you could use a different source. Rusted AutoParts 23:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
If you have to change the sources in order to make them reliable, then, that version was not using more reliable sources after all. Freemanukem (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
You’re the one saying it’s not a good source. I disagree, and I’m just pointing out that you could easily find another source if you’d like. That didn’t require the entire production section to be reduced in quality. Rusted AutoParts 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not what I like! That source is not good enough for the wiki. But no, the changes weren't made because of one source, haha. They were made to improve upon the quality of the article, as covered already. Freemanukem (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
That’s the thing though. As myself and now Masem have said it’s the inferior version. It’s essentially been rollbacked to a rough draft version from a fine tuned version. Rusted AutoParts 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I have demonstrated multiple times now that that version was not fine tuned. Whether a preferable or not (that's what we are debating), I think it's rather myopic calling it fine tuned. I don't even call my version fine tuned and I like it much better. Masem did disagree with you on colabs, and did seem to miss the unreliable casting agency ad source. Freemanukem (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You’re getting incredibly hung up on the sources aspect, I keep saying the way everything is written is sloppy is the fundamental issue. We can add new information and swap sources but this presently written section is sloppy. Rusted AutoParts 00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This is wikipedia. It's not an opinion to have good sources! Freemanukem (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
.....That’s not in dispute, I have said countless times sources can be swapped. Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You’re also engaging in a lot of whataboutism. Just because you find sources you question doesn’t mean my issues with sources you added aren’t still a problem. Rusted AutoParts 00:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I have said over and over it's not what I like. How did you conclude from that I engage in whataboutism is a great mystery to me. Freemanukem (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I say Coming Soon isn’t a reliable source, you respond with “well what about this PDF?” That’s whataboutism and not addressing the concern about Coming Soon. Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please check again when I brought up the PDF. I was talking to Masem. Freemanukem (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s still a whataboutism when it comes to discussing sources. You can’t make a stance about one of the sources in the previous version when there’s a complaint of unreliable sources I’ve issued about your rewrite. Rusted AutoParts 00:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Also the fundamental issue here isn’t the sources it’s the way everything is written. It’s sloppy and overdetailed. It no longer meets up to standard with your rewrite. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. For example, I have explained why Joel Silver is worth mentioning (a very important change in terms of personnel), while, on the other hand, I believe going into detail about Penn's script isn't (because his script is not about this film). To me the other version both manages to say too little of what's important, and too much of what is not. Freemanukem (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Silver leaving Warner Bros. isn’t necessary information because it was about the departure from the studio not this film. The film was not announced when he left anyway. We can go on and on here but it’s not seeming to go anywhere except back to where we were. Anyway, there’s 2 against 1 for the old version so I can come back in 24 hours to restore it myself if it’s not been restored prior. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
By that logic, then Lilly's non involvement shouldn't be noted either, because she never left the film, she just was never part of it! The argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Masem's assessment was before I pointed out the unreliable sources used in that version. Also, Masem did not come with a fresh perspective into this, as they had already pre-approved a version of it: User_talk:Masem#Matrix_4 Freemanukem (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1) Lilly’s non-involvement is relevant because she directed the first three with her sister and is the first time they aren’t directing together. 2) You’re once again fussing about the sources when I have said: You. Can. Swap. Them. (With reliable sources). 3) I asked Masem’s input as they are an editor on the page it made sense to look for a third party opinion so it wasn’t just two people disagreeing and getting nowhere. I didn’t poke them to agree with me, you didn’t poke them to agree with you, Masem was simply asked their input. That doesn’t disqualify that the current WRITING quality of the production section is significantly poorer than earlier. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1) This is not the first time they are not directing together. 2) Masem said the supposedly reliable sourcing was a pro. Of course I would point out that that's not the case since they missed it. 3) All I said is they didn't come with an entirely fresh perspective, nothing more than that. I think you should sleep on it (I know I am), as you make rather hyperbolic statements right now. See "rife" with unreliable sources, "fine tuned", "significantly poorer".Freemanukem (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1) Irrelevant as even if they worked apart before, they have worked together on Matrix together. This still doesn't make the Silver info relevant. 2) One source you took issue with doesn't disqualify the other sources. 3) Whether Masem had "fresh perspective" isn't relevant, I invited them to provide input. Masem having prior experience on this page/franchise is a plus as they are aware of what's being discussed. Saying i'm being hyperbolic do not address my problems: The Coming Soon source, how you're not addressing the writing quality criticism. These things are being drowned out by you isolating the sources qualm which has been addressed already. Rusted AutoParts 01:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming at this having contributed to a number of film articles and having had updated the franchise page in last couple months before this page could be created. The quality between the two versions is vastly different, though neither is perfect. Just that are points to merge from one into the other, and given the quality of Rusted's, it is better to start there and add in anything salient from Freemanukem's. --Masem (t) 00:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This version is the version from the franchise page after all! Freemanukem (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Then it could go for an overhaul then. Rusted AutoParts 01:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Its been reworked a bit (and frankly when I went yesterday to trim down the section on M4 on the franchise page, I did see a lot of extra fluff in that). --Masem (t) 01:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I can live with any combo, I don't claim any sort of ownership obviously. But several things will have to change in the other version, i.e. not just adding, removing too, see going too much in detail about Penn's script. Freemanukem (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm not trying to get the previous version restored because "I like it better", it's a better base to work with based on it's writing quality and how it was structured. New information (the Berlin filming, Toll's collaboration) and new sources can be inserted, but it needs to be returned to a cleaner writing quality. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering

«The original Matrix trilogy was jointly written and directed by Lana and his brother, Lilly.»

his??? brother??? It's ma'am!!!

187.116.91.252 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed the statement outright. The lede is too short to have to explain the gender issue. --Masem (t) 04:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Regarding the lead section, before my edit, it looked like this. Per WP:LEAD, I reordered the lead section's elements as seen here to put the most noteworthy upfront, that it is a Matrix film. Reeves, the star of the franchise, was also in a second paragraph, which seemed unnecessarily late. It seemed best to identify the franchise upfront, Reeves/Moss, and Lana Wachowski's involvement. Also, I dropped mention of The Matrix Revolutions because I think it is ambiguous in indicating both out-of-universe and in-universe chronology. If there is a better way to word the out-of-universe chronology, it could be restored. Otherwise, considering how Revolutions ended, we should wait for more information about what is happening in-universe. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A concern is that we have no idea how big Reeves or Moss' roles are. They're back, but all further casting has suggests others will be the leading roles. Whereas, Lana's return is more of a highlight. --Masem (t) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe reorder elements in terms of franchise, Wachowski, then Reeves/Moss? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Godzilla vs. Kong replaces Matrix 4.

Should we keep the fact that Godzilla vs. Kong takes the previous spot of The Matrix 4? I'll keeping re-adding it if it gets removed because it's sourced. Zack41Attack (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter in the slightest whether or not a film took another films release slot. It’s trivia at best, so stop putting it back. Rusted AutoParts 01:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Very well, I'll stop. But don't you realize other films that were postponed due to the pandemic have trivia at best too? THEY weren't removed. Zack41Attack (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that their initial release date was changed due to a pandemic. That is of note. Not “Matrix 4 was replaced by Godzilla vs Kong in its old release date”. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

But weren't both movies pushed back due to the pandemic? Cause I'm pretty sure they were. Plus, on the list of impacted films, it mentions Godzilla vs. Kong replaces The Matrix 4. Zack41Attack (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Again the films be I delayed due to the pandemic isn’t trivia. The pandemic has had massive ripple effects on the film world so it has worth. Please don’t employ WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Rusted AutoParts 03:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I was only trying to explain what I saw anyway. But I now know. Zack41Attack out. Zack41Attack (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

On the leaked name

I know there is a report from Yahoo! and possibly other sources of a leaked name for this film. We cannot go by leaks for naming or factual information on WP. Please do not add or move the article until this name or another name is verified by WB. --Masem (t) 23:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The HBO commercial spot simply says "Matrix" but there are now promotional posters that say The Matrix 4. I am sure this film will have a full title eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.115.58 (talk) 13:23, 11 May, 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant in a nutshell

This is why Screen Rant is unreliable:

This is what SR does for a living

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtunzini1 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Your lack of real evidence proves nothing, and this is a waste of space on this talk page. Iamnoahflores (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Matrix (2021 film) → Untitled fourth Matrix film – Aside from the new logo, there has been no indication that Matrix is now the actual title of the film. Usually, a title reveal is accompanied by a studio announcement or press release. In response to a purported leak of the final title on January 30th, WB informed Screen Rant today that the film remains untitled. Therefore, I propose that this article be renamed to Untitled fourth Matrix film in the same vein as the Untitled third Fantastic Beasts film until the actual title is announced. JFWillson (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think just the appearance of a new logo by itself is enough to assume that we now have the actual title of the film, especially not when the logo in question is just the generic logo used for the brand. To me, it seems like this logo is just a placeholder (like Disney using the generic Star Wars logo to represent future, currently-untitled Star Wars films), and that Warner Bros. has decided to switch to a generic logo to represent the film in order to not mislead people into believing that The Matrix 4 is the final title as we get closer to the film's release. Think about it: it would be like having an article for an untitled Star Wars film dated for 2022 be called "Star Wars (2022 film)" just because Disney used a generic Star Wars logo to represent the film on one of their social media accounts. I would say that WB's statement to Screen Rant takes precedence because WB have said nothing on the matter on any of their own channels. In regards to Screen Rant's reliability, while I don't know whether they are considered a definitively reliable source on Wikipedia at this time, the latest discussion that I could find on the matter shows that consensus among Wikipedians is leaning strongly towards reliable. --JFWillson (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Screen Rant is not completely unreliable, and since they said WB themselves said it (SR said it as a fact, not "rumored" or "supposedly," even updating the article to update with information they recieved to say how they rumored title was wrong) we should listen to that. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support move. The only piece of evidence for this title is that logo and ScreenRant's speculation. Warner Bros. has informed ScreenRant that the film is officially untitled, which is included in the article's #Title section. —El Millo (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support change but to Matrix 4 or The Matrix 4 because while this is not the official title, it is the WP:COMMONNAME (and the article can reflect that). The vast majority of reliable sources are calling the film this at this time. It can be moved again when an official title is set. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have a title card that says Matrix. Should just leave as is until we get official title. Rusted AutoParts 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – "No official title" = "untitled". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a colloquial title being used. Like today, Variety has an article here headlined, "Neil Patrick Harris Says Lana Wachowski's 'Matrix 4' Shoot Felt 'Very Intimate'", with the article saying, "Neil Patrick Harris spent some of the pandemic filming 'The Matrix 4' in Berlin." Again, this does not mean this is the official title, but it is a common and recognizable title to use until an official one can be confirmed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 11 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 05:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


Untitled fourth Matrix film → Fourth Matrix film – WP:PRECISION, page names should not be more precise than necessary. "Fourth Matrix film" is enough to identify the exact subject. The fact that it's untitled is just an extra detail. Cleopatra xiaojie (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support: As close as we are to possibly having an official title (nothing WP:CRYSTAL), "Fourth Martix film" is certainly a more likely search term (and therefore redirect) than "Unititled fourth" once the title is released and the article finally moved. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given how close the film is (in addition to the rumors of the name), we will likely be moving this "soon" (months) to the final name, and thus the need to move just for the precision purpose makes no sense. --Masem (t) 03:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought the same at first, too close to knowing the final title to bother with a minor clerking move, but then I thought... Wouldn't it be easier to move this to "Fourth Martix film" now and delete "Untitled fourth Matix film" now. Then when the time comes, only have to redirect (as a plausible search term) "Fourth Martix film" to the new title, due to the "Untitled" part of it being redundant at that time? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename the article

I am afraid that a normal user does not have the ability to rename the article. The movie already has a name. --Adan Universal (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10838180/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5

IMDB is not a reliable source and is only guessing at that name being the 4th matrix film. --Masem (t) 21:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
https://screenrant.com/matrix-4-resurrections-title-revealed-test-screening/
This article by Screen Rant says a viewer who watched the test screening said the film has so far been titled The Matrix: Resurrections. I don't exactly know whether Screen Rant is a reliable source or not, but I hope this might be evidence that there is a title for this film. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (Leave me a message•Changes I have made) 03:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this article is probably referencing this unverified twitter: https://twitter.com/ViewerAnon/status/1405063856301301764/. I think it is in everyone's best interest to wait until something is announced officially. After all, there is there is no deadline. BOVINEBOY2008 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Screenrant is questionable per WP:RS/P, but given that it is building the claim off one unknown user's tweet and without getting any other confirmation, definitely a case to avoid. --Masem (t) 00:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone remove the colon. ANONYMOUS3746945937 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the logo official? As far as I can tell, it's found on IMDB and a few other sites might also be using it. However, there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest this is an official logo. Also, on top of that, the logo is nominated for deletion, and the film's official title has been revealed. giftheck (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. 13 in favor, 4 opposed. WP:CONSISTENT appears to be the most convincing argument to discussion participants. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Matrix: Resurrections → ''The Matrix Resurrections'' – Franchise title convention does not include a colon, as seen in previous films The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. JohnDiLillo (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Sampling sources on the name announcement I see the title both with and without colon. WP:SUBTITLE states The standard separator for the title and the subtitle (that is, in cases where both taken together don't constitute a continuing phrase) in the page name is a colon followed by a space which implies that a colon might be appropriate here. I'd be leaning oppose, except for WP:CONSISTENT. PaleAqua (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst I agree with PaleAqua with regards to a subtitle, in the past "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" weren't subtitles; they were part of the full title. I don't know, but I'd assume (and I hope) that this is the case here. sheeldz (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree and Comment - I'll echo the seniments above that the article's current title doesn't follow the naming convention of previous films in that Reloaded and Revolutions were actually part of the film titles and not subtitles, but to also add the source cited in the article also excludes the colon in the title, as do several other sources for the official title. giftheck (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Sheeldz and Ggctuk. Perhaps I'm being very guilty of WP:CRYSTAL here, but given what PaleAqua said about the inconsistency of the colon, I'm going to make the assumption that it's intended not to be included for simple reasons of consistency. — Czello 13:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as I do feel that the title would make logical sense to match the previous two films for consistency. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support per consistency. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait I'm looking at the RSes here and they are definitely split on reporting from the trailer they saw last night (Variety has a colon, THR does not for example) That implies that WB hasn't put any official press to paper yet to work from. While we could infer the lack of colon from prior films, it would simply be best to wait for more press info to be discussed where we should have WB's own wording and punctuation to go off of. --Masem (t) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's fair to assume that the title follows the conventions of the previous two films. If this one were to have colons, then Reloaded and Revolutions should too. Seeing as its been accepted that they don't, neither should this one. JoaumBoladaum (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A lot of guesswork and assumptions among the supporters. Current sources are mixed as to the presence of the colon. Let's just wait and see. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Per Sheeldz, based purely on uniformity of previous titles... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Official title is revealed as The Matrix: Resurrections. Should not be changed otherwise (unless there is an official confirmation given). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdiehardfan (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. It should be maintained as directed by the primary source.--Xabier (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - As others have said, there is no consensus among trades whether there is a colon or not, so it's fair to assume that the title follows the conventions of the previous two films. It's worth keeping in mind that all the reports of the title are coming from trailer footage shown at Cinemacon, which would have only included the film's logo and not the title spelled out in an encyclopaedic format. Therefore, the correct title is almost certainly "The Matrix Resurrections". -JFWillson (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Though we do not have a confirmed first-party source to set this in concrete, we do at least have the naming conventions of the franchise thus far. It would honestly be a greater assumption that the title includes the colon, all things considered. BOTTO (T•C) 04:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Given the conflicting reports, it's appropriate to consider precedent here NathanielTheBold (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Tally So Far - Thought I'd just tally up the votes so far. We have 9 Supports and 3 Opposes. giftheck (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Despite the conflicting reports from different news sites, the title conventions for the previous two dictates the lack of a colon. --Babar Suhail (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the previous two films did not have colons, virtually every reliable source is including the colon in the title, so until we receive official confirmation that the title does not have a colon (which I do believe will happen eventually), we should stick with the current title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the WP:COMMONNAME would be a powerful argument here, but as far as I can see there's no clear winner between the colon version and the non-colon version. Plenty of sources omit the comma.[1][2][3] We should therefore stick to WP:CONSISTENCY with the other titles, until and unless it's shown that there really is a clear common name in sources which includes the colon.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support to follow convention. I agree with JFWilson's logic that the trades are all basing it off a logo so it is more than likely not with a colon --Doomslug1 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

+Support Just the way it's supposed to be. --uKER (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Composer

Beyond what Google says when you search 'Matrix 4 composer', does anybody have any sort of reliable source to back that up? Because all I've found is the IndieWire source (which states one, but not the other - https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/matrix-4-release-date-cast-plot-details/editing/) and no actual confirmation from anywhere else. Until a reliable source says one way or the other, I think that this field should be left blank. Gistech (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned this above in Talk:Untitled fourth Matrix film#Composer already. To summarize there is nothing in that article to actually confirm Tykwer beyond a statement without anything to back it up and it absolutely does not mention Klimek in any capacity. The article appears to just be making an assumption without any evidence beyond 'Tykwer did the scores for these films prior'. Since that's the case, I don't think that this article meets the criteria for reliable sources. giftheck (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
According to IMDB , music composers for matrix 4 are tom tykwer and johnny klimek: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10838180/fullcredits?mode=desktop&ref_=m_ft_dsk ParsAA74 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
IMDB is not a reliable source in this instance. giftheck (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The composers have been officially confirmed. I have added and cited this in the article. giftheck (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Release date 15th December

Source: https://www.matrixresurrections.net/?synopsis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.141.201 (talk) 13:36, 9 September, 2021 (UTC)

That either isn't the official website (that would be [4]), is the non-U.S. release date, or an error. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks to be either an error or a non-US date on the official website. The link to whatisthematrix redirects to the site I provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.141.201 (talk) 16:11, 9 September, 2021 (UTC)
Correct, it does. From the UK, however, no definitive date is given beyond 'December'. giftheck (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

based on Characters claim

We don't know (also, no secondary sources) whether the film is based on Characters yet. So I removed that remark from infobox. --Ochloese (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Look at the trailer and the WGA credits. It's a part of it. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Lets not forget the offical website as well, since the official website claimed that the film is based on characters. Here: https://www.matrixresurrections.net/?synopsis 211.27.125.103 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

'Premise' section

Do we have a source for the claim that the film takes place 18 years after Revolutions, or is that just conjecture given that 18 years have passed in the real world since the release of that film? -JFWillson (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Given details of the film are scarce (on purpose), I think it's just speculation. Iamnoahflores (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The source, though not in English, states the story picks up 20 years after Revolutions, and that comes from one of the screenwriters. giftheck (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Officially-released synopsis

The official synopsis has been released by Warner Bros.:

In a world of two realities—everyday life and what lies behind it—Thomas Anderson will have to choose to follow the white rabbit once more. Choice, while an illusion, is still the only way in or out of the Matrix, which is stronger, more secure and more dangerous than ever before.

Source: https://www.wbawards.com/screenings/film/?film=thematrixresurrections

Should we replace the premise with this one? giftheck (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Poster Glitch

On my phone, whenever I go to this page on the regular Google browser, it shows the teaser poster, but when I click on it, it shows the official poster. Also, whenever I go to this page on Google Chrome, it shows the official poster. Weird. ObeseFriedChicken (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You might need to WP:BYPASS your browser's cache. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Characters List

Not sure if I'm missing something here, but the sources for the claim that "Hugo Weaving and Laurence Fishburne appear via archive footage" are both from what appears to be a Wordpress blog intended for leaks/rumors. Any reason this particular source is acceptable? Otherwise, this claim should be removed. Harrisonisdead (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not, it would most likely fall under WP:UGC. giftheck (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done Sentence & sources removed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Score uses Don Davis' themes.

The FYC site for the score shows that Davis' themes are being reprised by Tykwer and Klimek. I don't want to just mention it without other opinions first, though.

(Web Archive Backup link)

Side note: the site also has a synopsis for the film too. giftheck (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyediting

@Nicolasburle:, can you please avoid contractions in article text, per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. Also, some of your edits have introduced grammatical errors, like "Either he or Trinity don't recognize each other" and "after the Wachowski's refuse every offer". Thank you for your copyediting work, and I hope you incorporate this feedback. Firefangledfeathers 16:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Slashfilm claims Groff is playing Smith.

Can this source be considered as reliable? Every other article I've seen stops short of saying Groff is playing Smith, but this one outright states it. Slashfilm is not mentioned in WP:RSPSS so I don't know if this is reliable or whether it's worth waiting until something else comes along from another source to back up the claim. giftheck (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on that article, it seems like they're just speculating based on the trailer, as opposed to having any actual information to confirm that that's really the case. Seems more like a fluff piece than something we should be using as a main source for a claim. Probably best off waiting until there is confirmation from a more notable publication that isn't just speculation. Harrisonisdead (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been confirmed. Groff is playing the character called MATT HINGES (see Yahoo entertainment article) which is an anagram for AGENT SMITH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.128.141 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Yahoo Entertainment considered a reliable source? As far as I know, it just compiles articles from other sources of varying reliability. When I search a quote from that article, it brings up a boatload of other dummy news sites, some that try to imitate actual news sites. Harrisonisdead (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no discussion on the reliability of Yahoo! Entertainment as a source, but the source provided is not Yahoo! Entertainment, it's Yahoo! Style, which, at a glance, appears to be the Yahoo equivalent of a gossip rag. No official source has stated what the character's name is. WB sure hasn't. As I result, I suggest we remove the name from the article. giftheck (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo is just aggregating an article from http://bangshowbiz.com/, which seems even raggier. One of their front page articles right now is "Robbie Williams hates his hairy butt cheeks". I am removing the character name, the source, and the flowery description (unsourced). We can afford to wait for reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I concur. If this really is legitimate, it is better to leave it out until a reliable source covers it. giftheck (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yep, and this wiki article has been plagued by leaked/rumored information in general. For example, the source for the name and description of Christina Ricci's character is a leaks/rumors blog on Wordpress. I'm also not sure where the info that Trinity's alternate name is Tiffany comes from. Harrisonisdead (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Tiffany comes from the trailer's own description: "Moss portrays the iconic warrior Trinity… or is she Tiffany, a suburban wife and mother of three with a penchant for superpowered motorcycles?" giftheck (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Matrix Resurrections Press Kit states who the remaining characters are

According to this article, the officially-released press kit explicitly states Groff is Smith and Neil Patrick-Harris is 'The Analyst'. It also gives details about Niobe and the new human city. However, I am not familiar with Screen Crush, so I don't know where it sits for reliability. giftheck (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant backs this up. giftheck (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

The film has no released reviews yet! Only a handful of tweeted 'reactions.' Don't say 'mixed reviews'! 2600:1007:B114:EB05:513D:45D0:7AC8:22CE (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add plot

It's been released in most parts of the world already, please, somebody, add plot. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.209.173 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The plot section seriously needs a rewrite, it makes no sense. Or revert it to a premise section until a proper plot sectiopn can be written. giftheck (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's super urgent to have a summary added and much better to make sure whatever summary is on the page is accurate and well-written even if it means waiting a few days. SleepySappho (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Some illiterate dune coon wrote the plot section, thankfully it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

2405:201:A003:A06D:876:7153:AAB1:25EB (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Change the plot as it is completely wrong

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021`

The Matrix Resurrections is set 60 years after Matrix Revolutions as opposed to the stated 20 years in the article PintoHalkat (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That will be covered when the plot section is written and inserted. giftheck (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it has been noted. giftheck (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

Sati is incorrect. 2607:FEA8:C221:B200:50FA:BC12:CC0B:147C (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot

I haven't watched the movie yet, but for all of you who have, the plot section needs work removing first-person references.BlitzkriegCat (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I watched the movie and honestly the plot as it is written right now is difficult to understand and follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.116.208 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

this section of the plot summary is wrong " his therapist appears and immobilizes Neo by manipulating time". The analyst manipulates/controls the relative speed of events, not time. 67.58.232.83 (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Neo and Trinity being close to each other good for system stability?

I did some tidy-up of the plot, trying to make it clear, but there's something I can't figure out. I watched the film several times and I still can't grasp why Neo and Trinity being close to each other improves humanity's acceptance of the simulation. Can anyone put it into sensible words? --uKER (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not that their proximity does that, that's all on the Matrix itself. Their proximity is solely responsible for the increased energy output lost by mass awakenings in the last version of the Matrix. giftheck (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Well the Analyst's speech starts with keeping Neo and Trinity close to each other, and then goes on to talk about how the more manipulated and stressed humans are, the more power they produce, and the more they accept the simulation, but I fail to understand how the stressing thing connects to him keeping Neo and Trinity close to each other. --uKER (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Shepherd

Max Riemelt as Shepherd. That's wrong

Max Riemelt as Sheperd. That's correct.

I saw on the Cast of Matrix. 2A02:908:E56:3360:DCA2:DB8B:3547:DC6E (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, good catch. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

Sati does not forbid Neo and others to save Trinity, she actually encourages it and helps them change Niobe’s mind after their first failed attempt. 147.160.149.1 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This was in reference to the plot, which had some inaccuracies like the IP mentioned. I've corrected this particular mistake. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Faint memories

Masem: Yep, after re-reading that change, I have to agree with the revert. However, we're now back at "The Matrix video game series based on faint memories of Neo", which is both ambiguous (whose faint memories?) and incomplete (the games also focus on Trinity, Morpheus, and others). Sources like The Verge describe it with more depth: "a world-famous trilogy of video games with the same plot, characters, catchphrases, and stylistic elements as the first three Matrix films". We don't need to go out-of-universe to that extent, but it would seem we need more than just "Neo" here. Suggestions? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I originally wrote that as something like "based his faint memories as Neo". Also, I don't think they named it "The Matrix" game in the movie, it was something different but clearly based on the concepts of the in-universe Matrix. --Masem (t) 04:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Watching the opening back just now, it was definitely called "The Matrix". It was a trilogy of games that clearly matched the films in substance, though the sequel titles were never revealed. You may have been thinking about the game titled Binary, which Neo was working on before Deus Machina started pushing for Matrix IV. Smith even recites dialogue from a Matrix game back to Neo, which was a well-known line by his character in the first film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
"...based on his faint memories as Neo" makes a lot more sense. That'll work for now, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Another plot point

Can anyone explain what was Smith's motivation to stop the Analyst from killing Neo and Trinity near the end? Didn't he want them dead too? --uKER (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Gave the film another watch and figured it out. I added this sentence to the plot. It's probably not explaining the point perfectly, but it's a start: "Smith demands Neo to stay out of the Matrix so that it does not get rebooted by the Analyst, which would cause Smith to be assimilated by the system again." If Neo stays in the Matrix, he'll probably destabilize it, and the Analyst will reboot it, causing Smith to lose his freedom from the system. --uKER (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It's my understanding that when Neo unplugged, it freed Smith in the process. Smith didn't feel that Neo was ready to face the Analyst, and if he were to try prematurely, get captured, and be forced to plug back in, then the Analyst would assume control over Smith again. He knows by now eliminating Neo isn't a solution, since they are polar opposites that balance an equation. He actually wants Neo to get stronger, which in turn makes him stronger. His top priority is eliminating the Analyst's control over the Matrix to guarantee his freedom stays intact. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Your theory kinda makes sense until you remember that Smith was actually trying to kill Neo before. --uKER (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not as black and white as it seems. Prior to their fight, he tells Neo, "All you have to do is stay out of the Matrix and leave the good doctor to me." A lot of their exchange here is Smith telling Neo he's not ready, and that their fight doesn't have to be "inevitable", responding to Neo's, "Sounds like conflict." During their fight, he also talks about "binary" referring to the illusion of choice in the matrix, describing it as the "nature of things", "light and dark", etc., implying that the fight is playing out naturally as scripted. He even warns at the end before grabbing the sink that he wishes Neo would have just listened to him, basically saying this could have all been avoided. He's describing how his hand is being forced.
We also have to remember that he's not entirely free from the Analyst's control just yet. When that finally happens at the end after Trinity is freed, he goes off script from the binary set of choices and chooses a different path: a desired choice of his that Smith alluded to during their previous encounter. There's deeper meaning to the events leading up to the finale, and it's more than just Smith wanting to kill Neo. Of course, this is all open for interpretation, which, despite its flaws, makes the film rewatchable! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Neo "offering to release Trinity if she consents"

I've reverted this change some three times already. That's not what happens. Neo doesn't "offer to release Trinity". He goes to the Analyst demanding that he release Trinity, threatening to have the Mnemosyne's crew kill him (read Neo) if the Analyst doesn't comply. --uKER (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand Neo mentioned to the Analyst that his crew would never allow him to return voluntarily to the Matrix regardless of what happens. It would have been too dangerous to allow the Analyst to take control of Neo and use his powers against the red pills. 62.30.3.82 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Review summaries

Reviews are mostly positive now but section only quotes negative reviews 124.170.173.105 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? The last few reviews I've seen have not been good. Right now reaction appears mixed at best. Trivialist (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Concerning reviews (and thus the lead-section) and how to summarize them; "mixed" is still a very broad but simultaneously a fixed term applied by Metacritic - and thus it is a rating easily recognized by people. Same would go for critical acclaim, for example. These would inherently be inscrutable terms, but due to being quantified by Metacritic, they are synonymous and easily identified as either 40-60 and 81-100 scores. Especially since Wikipedia uses the quantifiable data from RT and MC all the time for proving the general reception via their use of certified critics. For this exact reason, I think writing "mixed reception" and the like is a huge misrepresentation and should only be applied once it actually falls into a verfiable mixed-range at metacritic or the below-fresh bar at RT. Sure, aggregators are not perfect, but they are better than writing "mixed" because one or even two or three out of probably hundreds of articles say that a reception has been mixed. It is skewing the sample, maybe not even deliberately, by putting a strong focus on some articles that can be placed highly visible. Anyone can do that and Wikipedia should always try for quantifiable standards. For example, anyone could link three highly positive/negative sources as well and skew the sample. Sure an LA-Times-author is sourcable even with a claim that something has been mixed - without providing a source of their own -, that does not mean that the actual ratings of the movie cannot directly contradict this statement, especially if we were to talk about the median of ratings. Which is the whole reason for why aggregators exist: providing a sourced median to point at. Thing is, the movie is rated both "fresh" on RT (64) and "generally favorable" (64) on MC with a large and verifiable sample which is why it should be used. Plus it is about critical reception, not audience-reviews, which is by definition the reception by critics and largely means verified critics in terms of Wikipedia. You can always "prove" a reception with MC and RT as the critics there are the sources themselves, the LA-times-article for example does not mention sources, it just states a claim. In the end, which leads to the actual "lead"-section, too, I do not think that it is only two options, but three. First one: Leaving the phrasing at "mixed" quite clearly is problematic as it overtly contradicts one of the reception-tentpoles of wikipedia that is MC. The reception there is "generally favorable", not "mixed" (same as fresh on RT), so one could write that and not comment on anything else. Second one: Leaving it at mixed, plain and simple. However, as it is a clear contradiction to both RT and especially MC, that just seems inadvisable due to being, well, wrong in at least one major aspect and decreasing the quality of the article. Third one: Leave it out altogether in the lead and only write sourced content down in the review-section without commenting on it. Since this both solves the "mixed"-phrasing and does not detract from or conflict any sources, I think this would be most advisable. I will edit this accordingly for the time being. Autorefiller (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Great summary of what's going on. We can't discount the aggregators, but we also can't discount what strong, reliable sources have said. When they contradict, we need to leave it up to the reader instead of attempting to pick sides and summarize in the lead. Also have to keep in mind that aggregators go by a formula in determining if a particular review is positive or negative (and some reviews don't even include a rating by its author), and neither counts split/mixed in their aggregation. A 3.5/5, or 70%, may be their typical cut-off for rating a review positive, for example, but they still count an overall score of 60% as positive (Certified Fresh is at 75%). You'll even see some reviews with a score of 2.5/4 or 3/5 rated positive, and other times they're counted negative. So there is some interpretation going on within those that are on the bubble.
While we use aggregators as a good starting point for discussion, they are not relied upon as the end-all, final arbiters in the debate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
No disagreement with any point mentioned here, I think that summarizes all neatly and concisely. I also do not want to wield aggregators as the definitive hammer with which judgement is cast, far from it, I would even be relieved if aggregators were not as big a thing as they are for the multiple implicit and explicit reasons touched upon. Yet overall for the time being, I still prefer using them to at least the alternative of saying something is mixed which can mean anything and everything, but I think there is agreement here already. After all, judging solely from my experience on Wikipedia, this is by far one of the most common discussions, too, and it will be discussed time and time again how something fared critically and how it should be represented. We are all working with imperfect systems and our own meaning-making, after all. Autorefiller (talk) 17:24, 02 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary improvements

UKER, thanks for your help to continually improve the plot summary. I made a few more changes to build upon your recent edits. Some phrasing was restored, but others were influenced by the ones you made. Since you're the other active editor paying attention to this section, thought I'd bring that to your attention. If you have any issues with the most recent iteration, figured we could hammer it out here. Glad to see this section has made a lot of progress! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And just to elaborate a bit, I added a few details about Io, while at the same time tightened up the rest of the summary. The word count has actually dropped from 640 to 636 despite the addition. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, first of all thanks for taking me into consideration. Really appreciated. I read your modifications and made some more changes.
Here's my explanations for them:
  • I don't think mentioning Io as a successor to Zion is of any real value, just like we're not mentioning the Analyst is a successor to the Architect.
  • Saying that the Analyst was "able to resurrect Neo and Trinity after their deaths" is kind of pointless. Not like he would be able to do so before their deaths. I reordered that sentence into something hopefully somewhat better.
  • Changed the wording to say he resurrected them "to study them" to make it explicit that that was the reason to do so. Otherwise it sounds like he resurrected them with some other undisclosed purpose, and just studied them while he was at it.
  • When describing the effect of Neo and Trinity's closeness on the Matrix, it's like increased stability was mentioned twice. Removing one.
  • Being self-aware is something in itself. That's being aware of one's own existence. I don't think it's right to say Trinity became self-aware of her past.
  • Removed "triumphantly" weasel word near the end.
  • Removed remark that the ending mirrors that of the first film. There's countless scenes that mirror scenes from the other films. I don't think that a stylistic remark like this has any narrative significance that would make it worth mentioning in a plot summary that's meant to be as condensed as this one. We still do have a similar comparison made about the intro in a side note. Ironically, you seem to have removed a similar note I had added mentioning that Neo's deal with the Analyst ties into the agreement reached with the Architect at the end of Revolutions.
I lowered the word count somewhat again. I still do not like the part that begins with Neo's liberation destabilizing the thing, up until the end of that paragraph. Needless to say, feel free to keep editing. --uKER (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. As a side note, the page protection expired yesterday, so we're going to start seeing a lot more activity here from anonymous IPs. The "triumphantly" bit as well as the ending mirroring the 1st film were both added by an IP just before you edited. That's just the beginning I'm afraid... --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the way it's always is. Let's just brace ourselves. :) Cheers! --uKER (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Written by WB interns?

This article reads like it was written by an intern who works at Warner Brothers. It must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6F01:9480:58F5:D372:2440:BC86 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to ban Imback.0000

For some reason, Imback.0000 claimed that the poster is an "official promotional theatrical release poster", despite the fact that the film was not only released in theaters but it also released in HBO Max as well. When the good editors replaced it with "Release poster", Imback.0000 became mad and not only edited back to "his own truth" but he even called everyone who removed his edits a Nazi as well as added nonsense facts. We need to stop his madness by banning him for good. 94-kun (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Good! At least we stop his madness. 94-kun (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please update Nominations table

Please update nominations table to include BAFTA nomination for Visual Effects. Thank You--MKL123 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please remove BAFTA from the lead section, it was added[5] without any reliable sources. It should have first been added to the Accolades section first, and then maybe added to lead if editors thought it was WP:DUE. -- 109.78.200.214 (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

I request adding citations to several thoughtful reviews in the Critical Response section, end of 2nd paragraph and reference 127.

Elie Mystal in his commentary in Washington Post wrote “Resurrections” succeeds as a philosophical reflection on our present moment and “captures the real crisis of our post-truth era”.[1] IndieWire rated the movie as A- calling it “The Boldest and Most Personal Franchise Sequel Since ‘The Last Jedi”. They write “At a time when Hollywood blockbusters can only seem to be about themselves, Lana Wachowski subverts that trend in extraordinary ways”. [2] Wallaroo04 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been open for a few days with no traction, and the section is already over 600 words. There's no need to include additional quotes from critics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/29/matrix-resurrections-algorithm-fake-news/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.indiewire.com/2021/12/the-matrix-resurrections-review-1234687110/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Matrix_Resurrections/Archive_1&oldid=1261942313"