Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly...

> Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.

>While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

> Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, love.

Is this the most embarrassingly tryhard character/scene in kino history?

That scene was gold, only idiots didn't enjoy it.

His language was intended to be a bit off.

It's the ultimate exposition, but a brilliant scene if you understand it

that's what makes it try-hardy

If you immediately jump on the CRINGE WRITING!! DUDE PRETENSION LMAO you're pretty pleb and lowest common denominator in terms of critique

Define "try hard"

What does a bit off mean?
If it means he's supposed to speak elevatedly, that's one thing. But there's a huge difference between using "concordantly" rather than "accordingly" to try and sound smart.

AVC: Again, it seems difficult to approach such a rarified goal in a film that’s so action- and spectacle-driven, in a film with so many sequences that seem designed to overwhelm people’s intellects.

LW: Again, we don’t want to make it dull—I mean, it’s not like an experimental college film. It’s still a large-scale—it has an audience that transcends the audience that will ever understand deconstructionist theory. Yet people feel it emotionally. I mean, the end of the second movie is the scene with the Architect. And, I mean—[to Andy] should we maybe not get into talking about this?

AW: [Laughs.] Maybe not.

LW: But just in very broad strokes, we thought, “Wouldn’t it be interesting if instead of a traditional ending, where you have the hero combat the villain, or achieve something through force of arms, essentially, at the climactic moment of the film, if you could somehow insert the audience into that role of protagonist, and you could actually put the audience into feeling like they were in the fight?” We wanted to have the audience be Neo in a way they had never experienced before, in a more subconscious way.

AW: A kung-fu fight of understanding. [Laughs.]

LW: There’s a trick where if someone is saying something complicated, and in particular if they’re using big words, audiences will stare at the mouth of the person that’s speaking. We just do it unconsciously. It helps us understand what someone’s saying. So we thought, “Well, what if someone is actually saying this incredibly big secret, and then you show a background behind him, and at first, you leave the background consistent, but then you slowly start changing the background? And then your eyes will go from the Architect to the background to Neo in the background, and then back, and then you’ll start to miss things, and you’ll get a little lost and confused, and then you’ll get frustrated, and then you’ll have no idea what he’s saying.

>Durr the answer is love but we wanted to make it sound more complicated so the critics would give us enough money to cut our dicks off hurrr

I always thought he was trying to sound smart. He's a machine bent on controlling everything, including his appearance.

People unironically defend the prequels.

Have we reached the point where people unironically defend the Matrix sequels too?

I've always appreciated Reloaded, i don't defend Revolutions though.

W H A T · I S · T H E · M A T R I X ? · F O L L O W · T H E · W H I T E · R A B B I T · Y O U · A R E · M Y · P E R S O N A L · J E S U S · C H R I S T · Y O U · N E E D · T O · U N P L U G · W H A T · I S · R E A L ? · O U R · W A Y · O R · T H E · H I G H W A Y · I · T H O U G H T · Y O U · W E R E · A · M A N · W H A T · G O O D · I S · A · P H O N E C A L L · I F · Y O U · A R E · U N A B L E · T O · S P E A K ? · W H E N · Y O U · A R E · R E A D Y · Y O U · W I L L · N O T · N E E D · T O · D O D G E · B U L L E T S · T H E R E · I S · A · D I F F E R E N C E · B E T W E E N · K N O W I N G · T H E · P A T H · A N D · W A L K I N G · T H E · P A T H · T H E R E · I S · N O · S P O O N · M I S T E R · A N D E R S O N · W E L C O M E · B A C K · C O O K I E S · N E E D · L O V E · D O D G E · T H I S · F O R · Z I O N ! · R E D · P I L L · B L U E · P I L L · N O T · L I K E · T H I S · N O T · L I K E · T H I S · I · K N O W · K U N G · F U · I F · Y O U · A R E · K I L L E D · I N · T H E · M A T R I X · Y O U · D I E · H E R E ? · D O · Y O U · T H I N K · T H A T · T H A T · I S · A I R · T H A T · Y O U · A R E · B R E A T H I N G ? · T R I N I T Y · H E L P ! · W H O A · N E O · I · B E L I E V E · S I R · W E · A L R E A D Y · L O S T · T H E · D O C K · W E · H A V E · B E C O M E · E X C E E D I N G L Y · E F F I C I E N T · A T · I T · T O N I G H T · L E T · U S · S H A K E · T H I S · C A V E · E R G O · Y O U · H A V E · A L R E A D Y · M A D E · T H E · C H O I C E · I · H A V E · D R E A M E D · A · D R E A M · B U T · N O W · T H A T · D R E A M · I S · G O N E · F R O M · M E · V I S · À · V I S · W H Y · M I S T E R · A N D E R S O N · W H Y ? · W H A T · D O · Y O U · T H I N K · I · A M · H U M A N ? · N E O · W H E R E V E R · Y O U · A R E · T H A N K · Y O U

>Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.

This line in particular sounds like it comes straight from the mouth of some fat greasy trenchcoat and fedora wearing D&D player who's about to say something monumentally stupid. It's not that people don't understand it, it's that intelligent characters do not talk like this.

I thought all three movies were fun

>It's not that people don't understand it, it's that intelligent characters do not talk like this.

How many intelligent characters are also hyper advanced control freak AI's?

I don't know what you're freaking out about but it was obviously the designer's own fantasy about how super smart he was to design the Matrix.


Ergo, OP is a faggot

i love both

>777

Why would a hyper advanced control freak talk like a faggot? You'd think an AI that not only has access to the whole universe's information, but has even created copies of worlds with their own systems of knowledge, would use vis-a-vis correctly

>Why would a hyper advanced control freak talk like a faggot?

Why not? He's clearly got an ego problem.

>You'd think an AI that not only has access to the whole universe's information

You don't know what he has access to.

>Is this the most embarrassingly tryhard character/scene in kino history?

No. It's a scene featuring an old man who's got fuck-all to do but watch a shitload of televisions and read a dictionary. He's insane, OP. Don't you realise that?

>you share a board with people who unironically like the worst sequels of all time.

Is it more likely that the Wachowskis wanted to portray their super advanced AI this way, or that they just got lazy while writing?

I dislike the sequels but only the film-illiterate can't see the point in making his language like that. He an avatar of control, stagnation, and obfuscation. It's surreal, theatrical without melodrama, an operatic error message.

hes a smug cold computer program, predating the matrix and more human like computer programs like the Oracle and the Merovingian

I don't see the problem
scene was awesome

>there's a huge difference between using "concordantly" rather than "accordingly" to try and sound smart.

You could have had the opportunity to sound at least a little smart by knowing that 'concordantly' and 'accordingly' are not synonyms.