Talk:The Matrix Reloaded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

All about its SFX:,,101074,00.html

Transcript of Don Davis, the composer's statements. The site itself might not work on its own as a reliable source, but probably could be used if we cite the DVD as another supporting source:

Reeves giving away his own $73 million to the costume and SFX team:

{{cite web|first=Andrew |last=Godoski |title=Under The Influence: The Matrix |url= | | work= | date= |accessdate=December 22, 2012 |archiveurl= |archivedate=December 22, 2012 |deadurl=no}}

How the sound effects in action scenes were not created but captured from real punches.

Many references from The Matrix articles contain information on its sequels. Many refs can be salvaged and re-used.

Wachowski Brothers[edit]

I've changed this to say Wachowskis in light of Larry (Lana) Wachowski's sexual-reassignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Reworked the plot points of the second film. The trouble is that so much exposition happens in the Architect's speech (history of the Matrix, integration of choice, purpose of the One...all of that with critical details) that it helped to divide his speech sections, too. This will help people who are looking to get a detailed-yet-simplified version of what the Architect says. Being a program who doesn't talk to anyone but anomalies once every 100 years and spends the rest of his time doing calculations, it comes as little surprise that his super-precise speech carries so much information. And yet, Bakailis does such a great job at being menacing with the slightest intonations in his voice and those little flicks of the lip or eye. It's a hard character, and he plays it well - not too subdued, yet not too introvert.

Max314 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list the entire cast? Seems kind of excessive... -- Wapcaplet 17:06 21 May 2003 (UTC)

PS - Especially considering the entire list is copied verbatim from Copyright violation? -- Wapcaplet 17:11 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Possibly slightly but the majority of them are in there because their characters names are simply facinating in that they all have mythological or other significance whitch ties in with the movie itself and it's themes. what better way to explore what the warchowskis where trying to say than this wiki format.

Hmm, don't remember Wikipedia being about exploring the world of the Warchowski brothers. -- ESP 02:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To fully understand the MAtrix, the brothers W's brainchild requires supplimentary information and what better place to supply it then Wikipedia?

PS - sorry i didn't know I changed it the most I thought possible please edit it more if it still is an infringement. but please find a way to include the links already there -Ylbissop 21 May 2003

Actually, listing the entire cast is less likely to be copyright infringment. You can't copyright facts. However, if you perform an editorial function by picking and choosing (or categorizing), then you're exercising some intellectual effort and your results CAN be copyrighted. -- Dwheeler 20:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Since it's a list of facts it cannot be copyrighted. However, including the entire cast is pointless. Wikipedia is a dynamic system, while the cast list is static. It can be linked to with an external link. We can list the most important cast members and link to background articles which discuss the people or myths after which their characters were named. Any discussion of the plot of The Matrix Reloaded should remain in this article, not on the background articles. -- Minesweeper 21:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)

thanks minesweeper-Ylbissop 21 May 2003

This seems non-NPOV to me, anyone else agree?

While surpassing the first part of the trilogy in terms of special effects, the sequel is firmly rooted in the action genre, and anecdotal evidence suggests that most fans were disappointed by the lack of an imaginative storyline with philosophical implications in Reloaded.

--Dante Alighieri 00:40 22 May 2003 (UTC)

It's certainly POV, and looking at some fan response on the internet, doesn't seem to be true. Certainly, I thought there was an imaginative storyline with philosophical implications in Reloaded. As far as a cast list, I'm not sure why something being "static" means that it's inappropriate for inclusion in the wikipedia. For instance, a list of the Kings of France is static, but we still include that (although there are plenty of external sites that give such a link). john 00:48 22 May 2003 (UTC)

We have the list of kings because we have articles on all those monarchs. I don't think we'll ever have an article on the guy who played "Security Guard #5" and if visitors really want to know who that actor was, we have the IMDB link. I thought the movie was sort of slow at the beginning, but then all that stuff with the Architect was unexpected. I wouldn't call it predictable. It certainly raised a lot more questions than it answered. I think that statement is POV and needs to be reworded. -- Minesweeper 01:27 22 May 2003 (UTC) anecdotal evidence consists of 5 people, all of whom called the plot "too predictable" and "a disappointment, given the high expectations set by The Matrix". Also, if you have a look at e.g., you'll see that all the positive reviews focus on the kung-fu and special effects, while all the negative ones complain about the plot. Mkweise 01:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Mkweise, if you check out the IMDB message boards on the movie, you'll note a fair number of people discussing the intricacies of the plot, and indicating that they thought that it was very interesting. Even the reviews on IMDB are not uniformly as you describe them. Furthermore, five people is pretty lame anecdotal evidence, especially from someone who has apparently not seen the movie. I can give the anecdotal evidence of myself, the person I saw it with, my sister, and a couple of other people I've talked to about it, all of whom though it was pretty good. Also, check out - 75% Fresh in the general mix, 77% fresh among the "cream of the crop". It gets a weaker 62 from metacritic (but I think metacritic is more conceptually unsound, given that they have to give each review a "score" from 1 to 100, which is much more open to debate than rotten tomatoes' "positive" vs. "negative" reviews), but this is still fairly good. And a pretty high percentage of the good reviews don't say that the movie was just good for kung fu and special effects. Certainly, it has been said that all the movie is is kung fu and special effects, and there's been a pretty good share of bad reviews. Not least by Harry Knowles, who usually seems to absolutely adore pretty much any movie he sees. But your statement is far too sweeping, and the movie has gotten its fair share of good reviews, and positive reaction. What should really be said is "while some said bla bla bla [bad stuff], other critics argued that bla bla bla [good stuff]," or vice versa. john 01:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Jlk7e—feel free to have a go at rewording; I'm happy to admit that my summary of Ps of V is sub-optimal. Note that I never said the movie was bad, just that the plot disappointed due to the high standards set by the amazingly brilliant first installment of the trilogy. Mkweise 02:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Mkweise, I'd say that the first movie was simply a very good science fiction movie, and not amazingly brilliant, and that the second movie fully lived up to the standards of the first, with the exception of some lame dullness in the first 45 minutes. I've reworked the paragraph, see what you think. Feel free to edit it further if you think I've tilted too far in one direction. I'd add that the "Plot" section of the article is in serious need of work, in that what's there now seems to have been written before the movie came out, by someone who hasn't seen it. john 02:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Revolutions grossed roughly half of what Reloaded did. If Reloaded's success can be attributed to how well-received the original Matrix was, then Revolutions' failure can be attributed to how much people disliked Reloaded. The numbers tell the story, regardless of any personal bias either way. 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

mkweise, why did you remove reference to "critics"? john 03:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Jlk7e: I changed the two mentions of "critics" to "viewers" and "fans" respectively, because the opinions I described were gathered from random friends, not professional film critics. I reworded "the expansion of the mythology and philosophy of the original film" due to logic issues with that phrase; your subsequent rerewording is fine with me. Mkweise 05:25 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I've read professional film critics who were disappointed in the film in much the manner you describe (c.f. David Edelstein, Slate). The other comments were mine, not based on the comments of your friends at all, and did not relate to your comment, and did relate to what actual film critics said (Ebert, for instance, didn't seem too impressed with the philosophical stuff in either movie. The Salon reviewer was amazed by the philosophical profundity.) john 05:53 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I think the whole section beginning "The Matrix Reloaded surpasses the first part of the trilogy..." and ending "...the intellectual underpinnings of the films are overrated" is incredibly POV and should be deleted. I can see that some effort has been made to incorporate the other viewpoint, but the section reads as though biased in favour of a "reloaded is better than the original" POV. It's not in accordance with the majority of critics. --Urbane legend 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm definitely of the opinion that that section shouls go. Either it needs to be whittled down to, at maximum, one to three sentences, or just taken out altogether. It looks like people have been talking about this for a while, so I don't know if it's my place or anything, but unless someone urges me otherwise, I'm going to try to simplify and NPOV-ify that section in a few days. Pitr 10:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a mention about the all the problems during the production? For example, Aaliyah's death, the guy who plays Tank being arrested, etc. -- Erzengel 08:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I recently reworked the bit about piracy and User:MyRedDice partially reverted it, so I thought I had better explain my actions. Initially there was a header ==Pirate Copies Online== (or similar) which to my eyes stuck out as an invitation rather than a piece of information. To try to tone it down, I removed the names of the P2P progs from which the copies can be obtained , but then realised that it would be better to just the remove the header (i.e. the content wasn't iffy after all, just a presentation tweak needed). I should've put the names of the progs back after removing the header. I didn't, but thanks for doing so MyRedDice. Pcb21 15:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That all makes good sense :) Martin

Afterthought : presumably once the file is on one of these networks, it ends up on all the others pretty quick? Pcb21 15:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The inclusion of the SPOILER notice allows you to tell us everything that happens in the film. don't be shy! please tell. Kingturtle 01:00 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there should be two levels of spoiler warning. "soft spoilers" and "spoils everything" ;) E.g. saying that Zion is under attack is somehow a spoiler, but a small one, and the paragraph that mentions that does not spoil much more than that. After I added "or so it seems" it may well become a teaser instead ? --FvdP 20:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Best movie quote of the year so far comes from Merovingian: "cursing in french is like wiping your ass with silk". hehehe. Infantile and POV, I know. Oh, well. B 02:25 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The cast of characters has this line :
Sing Ngai as Seraph (as Collin Chou)
What does the name in brackets supposed to mean ? Jay 11:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On one level, it means this cast list has been ripped off from IMDb (see above)! It also means that Sing Ngai has changed his name to Collin Chou, probably when he went to Hollywood. In the credits to the film he is listed as Collin Chou - but his real name is Sing Ngai. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is 'climactic' the right word for the freeway chase?

Almost certainly not, given that it's only halfway through the film. Sockatume 06:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone asked for a reference to the filing locations mentioned- here's a link to a San Francisco Chronicle article dated Sunday, May 11, 2003 Mega-sequel, mega-troubles 'Reloaded,' shot partly in the Bay Area, faced tragedies.--Emurray 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Whoa. Has anyone read the second paragraph? Example

"By contrast, there are also viewers who believe that the intellectual underpinnings of the films are overrated, which are unfortunately the majority view."

The whole paragraph reaks of it. It sounds too fan-boy-ish. Plus, all that information should not be presented so soon. What if the reader doesn't have even a single clue what The Matrix Reloaded is?

(This is not the same person as above, but I agree.) Furthemore, the current attempts going on to NPOV the second paragraph of Overview are making it worse because balancing and counterbalancing is making the paragraph unwieldy. As above, there's too much information presented before we know what the movie is about. Why not put the discussion in a separate "Critical Response" section, farther down. Also, could the plot summary be broken up into a long version and a short version? What if people want to know what happened but don't care to know everything that happened? Edonovan 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A mention of the MTV VA Parody of Reloaded would be a nice touch ;) Plonk420 13:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The whole first section is very POV. It reads like an apologist article for the movie.Gateman1997 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole article seems POV, like a fanboy's dream review. Scholars and philosophers are tossed around like MANY people make these claims but it references ONE person? Come on, it truly is an apologist article for a movie that very much did not live up to it's expectations. Slammed critically and with a lackluster followup in theaters and DVD. 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "For 314 seconds, the mainframe can be entered (a reference to Pi or perhaps John 3:14),"

I've taken this out because John 3:14 is a completely irrelevant scripture - perhaps the writer was thinking of John 3:16? John 3:14 reads "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." There are many scriptures like that in the bible, it's hardly noteworthy Graphia 09:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe because it references the Son of Man (Anderson/Neo) and references pi, it's significant and possibly intentional on the part of the filmmakers. I'm not married to it or anything, but it's worth considering. Pitr 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but I still think it's too much of a stretch to be useful. If anyone particularly wants to leave it in that's fine. Graphia 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though there's much NPOV cleanup to do with the article as a whole, I couldn't help but feel compelled to add a piece about the connection between Neo and the recurring number 101. It's a relatively well-traveled idea and unlike so many fanboy statements can actually be backed up by something concrete, so I went for it. Bombfish 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

what about 202 AND 303?

If there is a prolific connection between the main characters and the numbers 202 and 303 that I missed, feel free to be bold and express it.Bombfish 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bash quote[edit]

Not included in the article, and way off-topic here, but I found it too funny not to pass on: (originally from

Matrix Reloaded is a very different kind of film from the original, both in style and theme. The first movie posed the question, "What is the nature of reality?" The question for this movie is, "Do French people ever stop talking?" Or perhaps, "Why is Colonel Sanders sitting in a room full of TVs?"

Maybe I've been up too late, but my sides hurt from that one. TKarrde 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

plot reasoning unclear[edit]

Hi. Neo's choice is unclear to me

  • Reintegrade(kuilling him?) with the source (so the source can build a more failsafe program?) and choosing a group of people to repopulate Zion (why are the machines helping to rebuilt recently destroyed Zion?)
  • Not comply(try to save his girl) and thus cause ther destruction of man kind.(why would the Architact destroy all of the inhabitants of the matrix..?)
  • Would'nt it be a simple solution for the exssessive 1% of free minds(due to choice) to be killed upon release from the matrix..?

--Procrastinating@talk2me 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Neo's choice was to either accept his role as 'The One' or reject it for his more 'human' qualities. The 1% that reject the Matrix are important to the survival of the Matrix; freeing the 1% would remove the 'purpose' of both man and Machine (Man's will to survive and Machine's job of maintaining order).

My supposition is that the Machines need to 'reset' Zion because the population is aging. If they wait too long, the One will die, as all living things do, and the city will be destroyed because the One can't reintegrate with the Source and preserve the 'required' number of people to rebuild Zion. Thus, if the Machines don't rebuild Zion, they are ultimately 'cutting their own throats' by de-stabilizing a mostly-balanced equation. 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, no matter how believable the Matrix is, 1% of the population will reject it. Zion serves as a new, external prison for the 1% allowing them to think they are being freed and fighting. As the Matrix ages, the number of people in Zion increases with humans being born outside the Matrix a la Doser and Tank. In turn, the machines are forced to wipe out the majority of humans in Zion as they cause increasing disruptions to the Matrix (freeing red pills.) The system starts anew with Zion being repopulated propagating the idea of the one where in actuality they still remain in a system of control, albeit alive. If you listen to the speech from the white haired councilman you could infer that he knows about the system of control arguing it as a system of symbiosis. As far as I can tell Zion rising and falling has marginal effect on the 99% in the bio-energy fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Is it really notable that The Matrix: Reloaded appeared on filesharing networks? In fact this is the case with almost all movies in existence... I'm removing this bit if nobody objects. --logixoul 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --logixoul 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Red line[edit]

Why is there a red line under the cleanup tags? I have never seen this in other articles. Im especially curious because it has been there for so many edits now. Remy B 15:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


The article has this absurd line:

The cast of The Matrix Reloaded is largely the same as The Matrix, with only minor additions.

er... let's think... there's smith, neo, morpheus, trin, then we have the oracle, and... there's hm... no. that guy... dead. yea, nope!

- VdSV9 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


In the second paragraph of the "Overview" section, there are three consecutive sentences starting with "However". AnonMoos 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of two of them. Feel free to change my edits. --Tim (talk), (contribs) 16:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Given the context of the film, is it really appropriate to refer to blacks as African-Americans,given that many may not be American? Additionally, while a lot of the background characters may be dark skinned, they still may be Caucasian. Additionally, as it stands, Caucasians make up around half the population of the earth - in the present day they are certainly not significantly outnumbers, if at all. I'm going to clean up this second point directly, I'm not as sure about the first one. WilyD 15:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I reckon this section should be deleted: there is no America in the Matrix, and whoever wrote the paragraph is essentially calling it racial tokenism. EamonnPKeane 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anther thing worth mentioning is that most (if not all, I think one of Merovingian's henchmen that fights Neo in the mansion is black but I’m not sure) of the non-white characters are 'good' characters, even among the programs (e.g. The Oracle, Seraph, Keymaker). --TheYmode 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Population mathematics[edit]

WilyD, I'm sure you honestly believe what you say, but . . . 1. Look up the population of Earth. Then, 2. Add the populations of Africa, Asia, and South America together. 3. Subtract about 25% from that total (we'll assume that 25% of the population of those three continents are Caucasian) 4. Let's not even factor in people of African, Asian, and aboriginal descent living elsewhere in the world. 5. If you've done your math correctly, your number HAS been largely than 3 billion. And if so, no matter what you think, Caucasians are far outnumbered by people of color. Go ahead . . do the math yourself.

Alright, I'll do the math
  • India ~ 1.1 Billion Caucasians
  • United States ~ 250 million Caucasians
  • Pakistan ~ 160 million Causcasians
  • Russia ~ 140 million Causcasians
  • Bangladesh ~ 140 million Causcasians
Here we see that 5 out of the 10 most populous countries are predominately caucasian, and one (Brazil) is far more ambigious.
But only counting the most populus countries, and excluding non-clearcut cases, it's already at 1.8 billion, while a comparable number in the top 10 are non-caucasian. Possibly a minority, possibly a majority, it's not clear to me. Not an overwhelming minority by any reasonable standard.
Or, roughly
  • Asia - 1.5 - 2 billion
  • Europe - 500 - 700 million
  • North America 300 - 400 million
  • South America 50-300 million
  • Africa 150-300 million
  • Oceania 20-25 million
  • Antartica 0 million ;)
  • Total 2.5-3.7 billion by my reckoning.WilyD 02:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
United States ~ 250 million? Come on man, this figure is fudged. [citation needed]
It's right to within about 10 percent, and the result doesn't really hinge upon it. 2.5-3.7 billion give or take 30 million is still 2.5 to 3.7 billion WilyD 02:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The main flaw in all these arguments is its attempt to impose American racial standards on the rest of the world. The label "white" is only really used in regions of the world with significant populations of Africans or other dark-skinned people (e.g. USA, Brazil, Africa). A Norwegian, when asked what race he is, will say "I'm Norwegian". The same goes for most other "whites". The largest ethnic group in the world is considered to be Han Chinese with 1,300,000,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:EamonnPKeane (talkcontribs)

Math Lesson[edit]

Now I see where the problem lies . . . with your questionable definition of "Caucasian". While I am fully aware of the anthropologist community's insistence of classifying people who are descended from the Indian subcontinent as "Caucasian", do you really think that is accurate? How much does the typical Indian or Paksitani have in common with the typical Spaniard or German (in terms of cultural or apppearance)? Do you think that most Bangladeshi consider themselves "Caucasian" . . . or are so considered by others?

If your whole argument is based upon misclassifying one-sixth of the world's population (India), miscounting America's population (Blacks & Hispanics clearly comprise at least 25% of the USA, so U.S. Caucasians total 225 million at most - remember Asians were not accounted for), and totally sidestepping South America (50-300 million? That's a wide range), then it is quite problematic.

I'm not certain what country you are from, but since this is I will assume that you are from the United States (like me, born and raised). One of the few downsides of growing up in America is that we sometimes look at things purely through American eyes. We see a predominantly White country and we subconsciously impute that image onto our view of the world. I don't know you, so I'm not saying that this is what you're doing. But it does seem that you are engaging in mathematical contortionism to support a premise that simply is not true. ABCxyz 13:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an American - and I have definitely known a significant number of "brown" people who self-indentified as caucasian. The caucasian article also indicates that Arabs, Indians, and so forth are caucasian. My estimates were rather rough, and could easily be off a bit - but 20 million Americans aren't going to put a dent in 2.5-3.5 billion total. If you mean to say White people than say White people, it's perfectly fine. Maybe the term has evolved a bit in American English (which I don't speak, sorry), but if the usage is ambigious in english usage in general, better to be precise. Maybe I should've just changed it in the first place - that may have been my mistake. But with the caucasian article indicating Arabs, Brown people and White people as caucasian, then to use the term that way here is just confusing. Where I grew up white people comprimised less than 50% of the population, although where I live now I think they make up a slight majority. I am aware of the isses. WilyD 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I'm surprised at the lack of Trivia listed on the page! :) I added one off the top of my head (having not seen the movie in over a year) but will most likely add some more as time goes by. Reloaded is filled with loads of lil' hidden bits and it'd be nice to get a list going :) cheers

  • Nebuchadnezzar's Dream Reference

License Plates in The Matrix Reloaded [1]

Trinity and Morephus’ Cadillac on the freeway: DA203. Daniel 2:03 - “I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.”

The Matrix Reloaded trivia [2]

In the highway chase scene, the license plate on Trinity's car says DA203. If you look in Daniel 2:3, which says "he said to them, 'I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.'" This is possibly making reference to Neo's dream, because he went to the oracle partly to figure out what his dream about Trinity meant. The biblical text is speaking about King Nebuchadnezzar's searching for the meaning of his dream. In Verse 3, the Nebuchadnezzar says, "I have dreamed a dream." In Verse 5, when asked to explain his dream, he says, "The thing is gone from me" (all this is from the classic King James Version). Near the end of the movie as the Nebuchadnezzar explodes as a result of the sentinels' bomb, Morpheus says "I have dreamed a dream, and now that dream has gone from me."G33K 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Burly Brawl[edit]

I just added the burly brawl from youtube to my space, it has to be one of the best fight scenes in any movie. (If it was DragonballZ, it would probably just have Goku doing a spirit bomb or something equally uncreative). I've noticed that at the beginning the fighting is more aesthetic, but round about the middle, you start seeing the side stepping manoeuvres of fighting systems designed to handle multiple opponents, such as baguazhang and systema (ignoring the exageratted physics), there's even some subtle comedy when Neo gets hit through the clones and you hear the sund of falling dominoes, and also when he picks up the one clone and throws him into the others and you hear the sound of bowling pins dropping. Does anyone know which martial arts were used for that scene? Dessydes 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

African-Americans and The Matrix Reloaded[edit]

Science fiction films rarely depict more than one African-American in a major role (For example, Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, the original film from 1977, had only the unseen James Earl Jones, while Episodes V and VI added Billy Dee Williams, the only African-American in the principal cast whose face was actually seen onscreen).

The Matrix Reloaded is the notable exception to this phenomenon. A majority of the principal cast (Laurence Fishburne, Jada Pinkett Smith, Gloria Foster, Harold Perrineau Jr., Harry J. Lennix, Nona Gaye, and Gina Torres) are African-American, as are Princeton professor Cornel West and light heavyweight boxer Roy Jones Jr., who have small yet important roles. In addition, people of color are seen throughout the background, particularly in the Zion scenes. In The Matrix Reloaded, the Wachowski brothers provide a rarely-seen picture of a future where the overwhelming majority of the world's people are non-caucasian.

Commentary of whether science fiction films depict more than one African-American doesn't belong on this page. Star Wars has little to do with The Matrix Reloaded. notable exception is POV. majority of the principal cast is misleading. The fact that people of color are seen throughout the scenes in Zion does little to support this. Perhaps someone can add some NPOV info and have some verifiable, reputable sources. At it's current state, this doesn't belong on this page. --Graveenib 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. If there is a reliable source that says something positive about the inclusion of African-Americans in the films then perhaps a single sentence could be included in one section, but this does not deserve an entire section. Konman72 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Roger Ebert in his review did, but I agree it wouldn't seem to merit a section. Шизомби (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Useless Trivia[edit]

The triva entry that states "The Merovingian's restaurant is on the 101st floor." doesn't seem to have any point. There is no mention of the significance of this anywhere else on the page. If no one objects, I will remove it. Greg Birdsall 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be deleted. Chipstick 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be more relevant if it were mentioned that the government building in the first film had 101 floors as well. That numbering scheme is used throughout the series, including room 303 where Trinity was watching Neo at the beginning and later where he is shot by Smith. NDale 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion section[edit]

While it may be interesting for some to analyze and speculate on a film's possible interpretations, this section falls under Wikipedia:No_original_research. If someone could find cited sources of relevant, published---Jackel 20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) critical analysis, it could be included, but otherwise this section doesn't belong.

Trivia Revisited[edit]

It seems like the Trivia has gone way out of control. Things like the number of people in the credits of the movie really add no value to the page. Either we need to clean them up significantly, or move them to a new article, possible Matrix Trilogy Trivia or something of the like. Any thoughts? Greg Birdsall 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to make big changes to the Trivia section, I've just finished itemizing it. The next step should be to prune it and try to incorporate as much of it as possible into the main article. Please see WP:TRIV and Wikipedia:Trivia and help me out! Greg Birdsall 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone ever do anything about that? I've got trivia questions i want answered.

Plot spoiler for Matrix Revolutions[edit]

This "chapter" ends with the revelation of Neo laying unconscious on the Hammer next to the now "human" Agent Smith, who has taken control of Bane in order to Kill Neo. The story is concluded in the last film of the trilogy, The Matrix Revolutions.

Ignoring the rest of the Plot section which is too long and overly detailed (yet with scattered mentions of people and things that an average viewer wouldn't know), when was this fact revealed in The Matrix Reloaded? I really don't remember the movie all that well, but just finished watching The Matrix Revolutions and it seemed like the fact that the guy they picked up was really Smith was supposed to be a surprise. -- (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix Reloaded Cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Matrix Reloaded Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrible Reception[edit]

As far as reception goes, this article gets it wrong. Neither Reloaded nor Revolutions was received well. You don't have to look farther than imdb to see that. Online, it's a running joke how bad they were, having been parodied in such things as "The Matrix in Two Minutes," where the last two words were the succinct sentence, "Sequels sucked."

At the movie theatre I was in, people actually applauded when it began, having enjoyed the first one so much, and having waited so long for the sequel, and booed when it ended, so disappointed in the plot and just now realizing the Wachowski brothers had no idea what they had in the first. The box office sales don't indicate how well Reloaded was liked, it indicates how well the original was liked. If you want to see what people thought of Reloaded, look at the box office for Revolutions, which was barely half of what the box office for Reloaded was.

People hated the sequels.

I really can't overstate this. The Matrix sequels were probably the worst received sequels to a popular movie series since Godfather 3. Having the reception section omit this and offering non-representative statements such as "The Matrix Reloaded had a positive critical reception in most of the media," and "Criticisms and acclaim, on record, are at times similar to those leveled at the movie's predecessor," really misses the boat, and makes wikipedia look either oblivious or biased.

Mota2 (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mota2. Most people agree that the two sequels to the Matrix are lousy. But people loved the original so much that they were going to see them anyways and see for themselves. It's very similar to the Star Wars prequels. Most people were disappointed. But they were going to see them anyways, because the loved the original '77 movie so much. And they saw each prequel hoping that Lucas realized how he dropped the ball in the last one, without that happening. The Matrix sequels were just special effects/action/war movies. There wasn't anything innovative regarding the plot, sci-fi. concepts, and visual effects that wasn't already in the first movie. And in fact they went so overboard with the jumping around bullet-time fight sequence crap and the visual effects that it got boring. When Neo faught the crowd of Smiths after a couple minutes everyone was just thinking: enough! Let's get on with the movie. But the whole movie was that. The dialogue was meaningless and the plot was inconsistent, e.g. what the Architect told Neo even turned out to be irrelivant; Neo didn't return to the Source and mankind wasn't destroyed. And I got really sick of watching Cary Ann Moss jumping around in that black rubber suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A big part of the reason that the "Matrix" sequels were designated "the worst sequels ever made" is due to the critics,a nd agood part of the white racist movie-going public. Never before and not since have you had so many veteran black actors and relative newcomers in a major science-fiction movie geared towards males 12-54 years old. And too traditionally where htere are blacks headlining major movies, the "star" ratings are usually denigrated against the film and its actors. this is undisputed! -- (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Veryverser

I think a big part of the reason is that they were really bad films. Reloaded less so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two images of The Architect?[edit]

Is it really necessary to have the second (profile) picture of the Architect directly beneath (or anywhere else, for that matter) the picture of Neo standing across from him? I don't think the additional pic doesn't serve any further purpose, and since there's no fair use rationale explanation on the image's page, I feel it should be removed. -- (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Trinity's sshnuke exploit of the electrical grid[edit]

I noticed sshnuke correctly redirects here, however there isn't a single reference to it in the text. Isn't it a problem? Maybe including some info/trivia (i.e. links to nmap or references like this about the electrical grid sequence)? (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been an article on "sshnuke", but it's been removed and a redirect "The Matrix Reloaded" created instead. I will copy the latest version into a new subsection of this article now. For info on the original authors, please check sshnuke. (I don't know how to transfer them, too) GGShinobi (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Highest Grossing R rated movie?[edit]

The Matrix Reloaded is not currently the highest grossing R rated movie as this article states, it is second behind The Passion of The Christ. It should also be mentioned this doesn't account for inflation. Source: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

actually they were right it is the highest grossing R rated film worldwide. Source: The Passion of The Christ is the highest R rated film in the United States only. Dman41689 (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Dman41689 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, is not a reliable source as per WP:SPS, and second of all, according to the IMDB the 'R' rating only applied to the United States (see [3]). In the other international territories it had different age certificates, so it is incorrect to say it the highest grossing R rated film worldwide, simply because the R rating doesn't apply worldwide. It is meaningless to compare its worldwide gross to other MPAA R rated films, when they all had different certificates internationally meaning different demographics of audiences were admitted—it's apples and oranges! Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ram nareshji (talk) Matrix Reloaded grossed $742,128,461 surpassed Passion of Christ which grossed $611,899,420. so Matrix Reloaded will be highest grossing Rated R Movie of all time. —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Art & life.[edit]

«Notice how, like Christ, Neo willingly offers himself as a sacrifice in order to restore peace between man and machine. [..] In like manner, Christ could not ascend into Heaven until he had completed his mission here on Earth. For both, this mission was to make the ultimate sacrifice. Christ on the cross said, "It is finished." The Deus Ex Machina, following the death of Neo, said, "It is done."»: "Christian Symbolism In Matrix Revolution" (I know, it's the 3d episode). "The Matrix (1999) has obvious Christological echoes. Keanu Reeves is Neo, an anagram of One, as in The One'". I think it's Christological what happens not only in the trilogy, but also in the life of Reeves during the period of the trilogy (or better, before its two final episodes), for a correlation between art and life really very, very unfortunate. Keanu Reeves, Christopher Reeve, etc. Nothing more to add, sorry everyone. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First line should read "the Wachowski siblings" as Larry is now Lana, I believe, and a mention of her sex change can be inserted, if that is deemed useful[edit]

Change the word "brothers" to "siblings" in the first line — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic has already been discussed at length. The directors are to be mentioned by the names that they were credited in the film. Their personal life after the film is irrelevant to the article and whoever is interested in that can follow the directors' link and find out. --uKER (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:The Matrix#"The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers". - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wachowski credit in the lead[edit]

To recap the situation, The Wachowskis were originally two brothers credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" on their films, before Larry underwent a sex change and became Lana in 2008. They were subsequently credited as "The Wachowskis". Andy Wachowski also underwent a sex change in 2016 and became Lilly. Some editors feel their new credit should be applied restrospectively to their earlier work, thus changing "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis". Other editors feel that this sort of revisionism is inappropriate in an encyclopedia, and regardless of the lifestyle choice of these two people, Wikipedia's job is to document history, and not to re-write it. As a consequence the record of their authorship in the articles about their earlier films is inconsistently handled:

There was recently a discussion at Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? resulting in a consensus on the basis of MOS:IDENTITY to change the lead in the article from "written and directed by the Wachowski Brothers" to "written and directed by the Wachowskis". There is now the question of whether that consensus should be extended to the other articles to make them consistent.

The four options at The Matrix discussion were as follows:

"The Matrix is a [...] film written and directed by..."

  • A - "the Wachowski Brothers"
  • B - "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)"
  • C - "the Wachowskis"
  • D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)"
  • E – add a NOTE by the name which immediately links the reader to the bottom where the modern name is shown/explained, i.e. "The Wachowski Brothers[1]" which links to "Later/Now known professionally as The Wachowskis" and creates a hover-over box displaying it immediately without clicking. (This is a new option proposed by Darkwarriorblake in the side discussion below — 02:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)).
  • F – the inverse of Option E "The Wachowskis[1]" which links to "At the time of production professionally as The Wachowski Brothers"? (Proposed by soetermans in the side discussion below — 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The question I want to assess, is whether we should try to bring all the articles into line or leave it up to the individual articles editors to determine the best approach. If we do choose to make the articles consistent, should we follow the consensus for The Matrix article or select one of the other solutions.Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Comment I believe we should have a consistent approach to all of the articles listed above, but I also believe the solution selected at The Matrix discussion is not compliant with policy. I do not believe Wikipedia policy supports revisionism, and I feel that the non-admin close at The Matrix discussion did not fully account for one of Wikipedia's core policies. These are the key points as I see them:
  1. The issue is about more than just identity; it is also about authorship i.e. Beatles albums don't stop being Beatles albums simply because the group disbanded. We don't ignore the name "George Eliot" simply because it was a pen name. When documenting works of fiction it should be crystal clear in the lead which name the work was authored under.
  2. MOS:GENDERID may favor "the Wachowskis" (option C), but it is just a guideline and guidelines do not trump policies.
  3. WP:Verifiability necessitates the inclusion of "(The) Wachowski Brothers" since this is the actual athorship credit. This is the name you will find on the works themselves and registered at the copyright database.
  4. MOS:GENDERID does not preclude inclusion of the authorship credit, and WP:V does not preclude the inclusion of their current professional name. In other words both of options B and D are compliant with the policy and guideline.
In regards to the last two points, I am leaning to including both names in the lead, that is option B or option D. There is also precedent for this, as seen at Switched-On Bach. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC). I am also ok with the newly proposed option E too which I believe is also compliant with the policy and guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B or D – Regardless of the formatting choice (I'm indifferent on that part), there needs to be a clear cut reference to the credited name in the lead and body of the article. It is very odd to see one form in the infobox and another throughout the article, with no mention of why this discrepancy exists. Furthermore, the previous survey at Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? is undeniably a reflection of the article's editing history, in which there is no clear consensus for one particular choice over the others. While that RfC may technically lean in favor of option C, the level of consensus there is questionable with very limited participation. Options B and D, or some form of them, provide a compromise that satisfies both parties. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Update: With the new option, add strong support for E as well. I would support E, B, and D in that order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B or D per GoneIn60's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Idem. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B – The credits for the film and the way the filmmakers chose to credit themselves needs to be maintained and respected. Note the Wachowskis have not expressed any desire to have their credited name changed on their pre-2010 films. The credited name should be before the current one, as seen in B. And option C, where the actual credited name is not seen at all, is historically inaccurate and least acceptable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A, maybe B - If there are any sourced information in the article that uses references where they are given their new identities, then it might make sense to make sure the reader in this article is aware they will find references that refer to them by their current name. Otherwise, since all sourcing seems to be before the transition and uses their previous names, there's no reason to change from how it will bills or represented at the press at that time. Obviously, clicking the blue link will reveal the transition, but it doesn't need to be called out here, unless it is critical to understanding the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B makes most sense to me to show the credits as they were at the time of the release, with a note afterwards. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support C or E (or my suggestion of F); options B and D are simply too long; it unnecessarily repeats "Wachowski" and "now known as" and "credited as" doesn't explain why. For instance, the lead on The Matrix should be a summary of the article, starting off with a note in-text like that doesn't help readability. I don't see why it would be so important to mention their professional name at the time, but if it should, I think option E (or possibly F) is best. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support D As I have previously opined in a similar discussion, we need to both respect the identity that the people in question present now, and respect our readers by not using a name that wasn't the one presented then. Option D satisfies both these criteria. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the above discussion arose out of an earlier 'Matrix' RfC. An ANI discussion is currently suggesting that a Village-pump policy discussion should take place about all such instances, ie all events and created works, which at the time of the event or created work the person was famous under another name. If that policy discussion occurs (which I think would solve this issue), it may well 'trump' this local consensus. Suggest we hold back here and see if that policy discussion goes ahead.Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • A general RFC on this issue was run late last year here. The closing consensus was to use context to determine what action to take.--Trystan (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hold off for now per Pincrete, especially given that we're now comparing a "generic" Talk page discussion with an RfC. Honestly, I think this thread should have been started as an RfC as well, but I've also noted concerns about the placement of this discussion given its scope at the ANI filing linked above. I'll weigh in on the issue itself if and when it's clear to me that proceeding with this discussion will be productive. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should let this play out and see where we end up at. We may get a solution that satisfies the concerns of both sides. The last time this was attempted at the Village Pump (see the discussion linked to by Trystan) the consensus was to use "context to decide on what action to take". That type of outcome doesn't really offer us much guidance. That suggests to me the question is too broad for the Village Pump. In fact, the crux of this discussion is to determine the context for WP:V and MOS:IDENTITY in the case of authorship. All the relevant article talk pages have been notified and so have their associated projects so I think we should see how it pans out. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pincrete is right. If I have to !vote here, it's C, D, or F. I disagree with a number of things Betty Logan said in the description of the issue (though they may border on the pedantic). The mission of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not "preserve history". History, like language, is not a static, reified thing. It changes with more information that changes our understanding of the past. Also, within the trans communities, it's generally understood that a trans person was always trans. To refer to them by old names (deadnaming) or genders disrespects and denies them after they've come out. It's not accurate, from this view point, to say "Larry underwent a sex change and became Lana in 2008". She was always Lana. People just didn't know it and it wasn't public. I understand the concern with "accurately" reflecting the credits, but we can inform the reader of that issue without disrespecting the directors. The compromise in WP:BIRTHNAME is that if someone is notable prior to coming out publicly, use their name but mention their previous name too. We can do the same here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward brought up an interesting point in the other RfC (and I'm paraphrasing here) that "The Wachowski Brothers" is a proper name of a brand or association, and while it only concerns two people, this is an entity; gender preference doesn't seem to apply. That would be like "Warner Bros." changing their name to "Warner Sisters", and though it is a much larger entity, would MOS:ID truly apply in either case? </end of paraphrasing> I'm not sure if that's the best comparison, as it may be leaning apples to oranges, but it's a point worth considering. Obviously, it comes down to whether or not you see the name as a representation of a group vs. a company; the former would be covered by the guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think my point was Warner Bros. is an association that includes all genders and people that work there or are stockholders or directors (even if they were female direct descendants named "Warner"), we wouldn't (and don't) consider proper names to be gendered - also note that proper name is "Warner Bros.", not "Warner Brothers" or "Warner brothers". The proper name is very specific and doesn't expand out to anything more than the brand. Microsoft is never "Microcomputer Software." Twisted Sister (and its alter ego Bent Brother) for example is not conferring gender. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I think there is a big difference in saying "The Wachowski Brothers" and "the Wachowski brothers." The first, all caps, refers to the collaborative name they chose. The name "The Wachowskis" was available and if either were uncomfortable with the term "Brothers" as their credit, they could have just left it off. We are using the name of the association they chose for the credit (most likely to avoid first/second credit position - so we should dump any option that lists them in an order, it's equal billing). There are places where they took credit by their name and those can be changed with a "credited as" note but they were minor credits not in the infobox (i.e. their credit as "Executive Producer" was as individuals). The problem with changing the name is one of Original Research and Synthesis. That movie continues to be made and distributed and they don't update the credits. We can certainly use their current names when discussing individuals in present tense and give links to their present affiliation but we need to match the names on the screen when we discuss the movie. "The Wachowski Brothers" as a proper name is not a dead name, just an old name of an association. "Larry" and "Andy" are dead names and should not be used except as a "credited as." It's simply incorrect though to replace "The Wachowski Brothers" with another association name or with two individual names within the context of describing the movie credits. The group "The Wachowskis" had nothing to do with "The Matrix" and the siblings that wrote it chose to be credited as a group instead of individuals. There is a tangential observation regarding success and privilege that is in play as they pitched the funding for this particular project as middle aged, married, heterosexual, white males. Hiding that aspect would seem to be saying that two lesbian transgender women were afforded opportunities that are not typical and whitewashes the issues of privilege. I do not know if that aspect has a place in the discussion but I don't think it should be lost. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point DHeyward. I'm wondering though if we know that "The Wachowski Brothers" is indeed a brand name like Warner Bros.? I guess I'm asking for a source or evidence. If that's the case, that it's a production company name or something similar, that would indeed change things. But if it's just a moniker they chose, and not a brand, then I think my original opinion would remain unchanged. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: It's considered a "corporate name" by the copyright office for "The Matrix" film release. The list of corporate names with claims are (for PA0000949615) :
Names: Village Roadshow Pictures
       Groucho II Film Partnership
       Silver Pictures
       Wachowski Brothers
       WV Films, LLC
       Warner Brothers
The copyright office also has personal name entries under Larry, Lana, etc. There is definitely a distinction. Also, there is nothing under "Wachowskis" - Jupiter Ascending for example is copyrighted listing personal names "Larry Wachowski" and "Lana Wachowski". --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Hm... but The Wachowskis (and the old title of the article The Wachowski Brothers) refers to the individual director... So the credit is a corporate name but our article is about the individuals. Therein lies the issues/confusion I think. Not sure what I think of this... I guess the question becomes are we referring to the people when we say "The Wachowski Brothers" in the article, or are we referring to the corporate name? If the former, I think C, D, or F. But if the latter, A and B make sense too. Looking at the article, to me it seems we're referring more to the individuals when referred to outside of their role as directors/writers. But when we say "directed by/written by" that's more the corporate name (...? maybe?). This has become much more nuanced then I expected. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
While we do want to be an encyclopedia one role we serve is to summarize sources and provide references for a reader who wishes to learn more to go find. Importantly here, thus, is to make sure what names they may need to search for, and it is very unlikely that the sources published at the time of this film's release (particularly print ones) are going to restart what they have to match what has happened past publication. As such, while there is certainly room to debate whether we should include "now known as the Wachowski Sisters", it would be a disservice to omit "The Wachowski Brothers", note only as that was how they were credited but frequently named in media sources from that time. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the "former known as" part which I think allays this concern. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support D as the clearest and most informative choice; with B as a second choice. Option D is the only one that clearly conveys the name the reader might know them by now while making explicit what the credit was in the film. B is a more awkward version of the same information.--Trystan (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow me to add my 2 cents worth! I haven't been to any of these pages before but I just watched the Matrix Trilogy and then decided to do some reading about it on Wikipedia. When I opened "The Matrix (franchise)" article I immediately noticed that it referred to "The Wachowski Brothers" and my thought was that it should be updated. I then started poking around and eventually came across this discussion. Now then ... I'm not saying I'm right in my belief that referring to "The Wachowski Brothers" is wrong; I can see both sides of the argument. What I'm saying is that there must be many other people like me AND there must be plenty of people who would also think referring to "The Wachowski's" is wrong. Therefore the best solution is a combination such as "Directed by The Wachowski's (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" so that anyone who knows the story will understand what has been done and won't go on a wild goose chase - like me - trying to get the article(s) corrected. If that makes sense? It's the only real solution which solves all the different problems presented by this issue... FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Side discussion[edit]

I'm not sure why these are the only options. The only acceptable representation is A because we live in the real world and reflect reality. The OPTION is we add a NOTE by the name which immediately links the reader to the bottom where the modern name is shown/explained, i.e. "The Wachowski Brothers[1]" which links to "Later/Now known professionally as The Wachowskis" and creates a hover-over box displaying it immediately without clicking. This is far more elegant than sticking "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)" in the lead or infobox and factual, unlike C - "the Wachowskis" and D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)". See the immediate start of the lead at Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain for an example. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a way to make it look more elegant without a note, as in Betty's example Switched-On Bach. However, the note is another excellent proposal. I think the discussion is hinging on whether or not we mention the original credited name at all within the article, and not so much the formatting of how it appears (there are likely a lot of good options not listed such as the note you suggest). At least for me, the format is not a concern, though it may be for others. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I will add your note option to the list of options above so it can be fairly considered alongside all the others. If that is not acceptable please feel free to revert me. If anybody wants to propose further solutions please feel free to add them to the list of options. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not Option F: "The Wachowskis[1]" which links to "At the time of production professionally as The Wachowski Brothers"? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts after reading through the related ANI discussion... It does appear that Betty explained the reasoning behind the non-RfC start and the intention of escalating this into an RfC once the dispute's talking points have been well-formed. The concerns by some editors questioning how this was approached are valid, but we should also keep in mind that RfCs are inherently discussions themselves, and while closure represents a stopping point, a new discussion/RfC involving the same dispute can and often should be continued if there are new arguments, ideas, and solutions not previously considered. I think a close look at what has been presented here (in the context of the last RfC's limited participation) would reveal reasonable justification for extending the discussion. As suggested in the ANI, the most effective way is likely to approach this from a site-wide policy perspective that supersedes the discussion here or at any related WikiProject. That said, such a move is only being contemplated. There's no harm in the meantime to weigh in here, as it may help form a solid foundation for the various perspectives, some of which may carry over if and when said discussion commences. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually feel like the above discussion has made some headway. Clearly people have divergent views on the issue but every single editor so far has been willing to entertain an option that includes both names. We might not get a solution here where we agree on the exact form but if we can agree on the nature of the content then the wider community can then help us with that. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


The discussion seems to have come to a natural conclusion. Despite the fact there is not clear consensus for any single option, it seems clear to me that there is a consensus for a "combo" solution, or rather nobody is opposed to a combination i.e. a permutation of both names or the inclusion of a footnote. There are several ways we can deal with this: i) leave it to individual articles editors to develop their own solution withing the general framework outlined here, or ii) begin an RFC to develop a universal format within the framework that we have more or less agreed on here. If we select to go with the RFC we can construct the community question here to get the details ironed out, and then run it at the village pump. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Footnote. Neater, sensible, retains the original credit, retains readability, satisfies the pedants. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes a lot of sense to put together an RfC to apply to all e.g. "creative professionals whose name/identity has changed since the publication/release of a creative work". Since it applies to projects associated with the works and people themselves, as well as to stylistic guidelines and the BLP policy, it should probably be held at WP:VPP or some other similarly central venue, and take the form of an RfC. Perhaps we should set up a collaborative space (in userspace, at a dedicated RfC page, etc.) to develop the wording of the RfC beforehand? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. It would be nice to get project wide approach to this problem. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)