Talk:Architect (The Matrix)

Deleted POV

Saying the dialogue was convoluted was POV. IMO that was the only thing that saved this otherwise wretched movie.--Unopeneddoor 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that there are so many dichotomies that are examined and expressed in the movie, coupled with what the Brothers have said, means that they meant us to be having debates like this.

Also, they have said the reason they avoid interviews regarding "what they meant" by this or that, is that they don't want to "ruin" what their movies might mean for other people. They apparently consider what we think to be so important that they aren't going to tell us what we should think of their movies.

So boiling it down to "there is no choice", is kind of missing the point. Neo and Trinity had other goals and they met them, at cost. If there was no choice, then Neo leaving would have also meant the end of the human race. He did say that, "The door to your left leads back to the Matrix, to her and to the end of your species." Not exactly what happened, so Neo's choice did affect some of the outcome.

And as for POV, we keep picking at it. Why not edit something or suggest something in particular that should be addressed? A lot of head-way has already been made over the last few months but none of us have stopped.....

p.s. Sign in and leave your signature next time..... ;)

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say pretty much the whole article is very POV. There are far too many different interpretations for this film, and as the creators have not made anything absolutely clear, this kind of article should only contain the known facts.

Oh, and by the way:

"Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the Source, and the salvation of Zion. The door to your left leads back to the Matrix, to her and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you are going to do, don't we? Already, I can see the chain reaction - the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason - an emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth. She is going to die, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Architect: Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength and your greatest weakness."

(all said by the architect) wouldn't this imply that there is indeed no choice in the matrix. I mean, look at it - Everything the Architect predicted was true. There was no real choice - Despite chosing the door that lead to her, she died. It didn't happen until revolutions, but I don't think that matters.

With the Architect and other important characters (Merovingian) pointing out that there is no choice, it seems to me it was indeed the intention of the film to promote that view.

But hey, its just a theory, as based on fact as others.

By,

Ben

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.73.212.241 18:33, July 24, 2006

I agree that the majority of the article is POV. Unless the Wachowski Brothers themselves or someone working very closely with them say pretty explicitly that, for example, the lack of instant crashing of the Matrix when Neo chose to go back to it was simply an attempt at persuasion, I really think it should be taken out.

That's just one contention; the article as a whole lists some reasoning that lacks citation. As such, it smacks heavily of theorizing, or original research. I'd much rather have the article be about simply what he says to Neo, and such, without really going into what he "means."

-- Last Thylacine 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Architect and the Gnostic Demiurge

Given all of the references to various gnostic beliefs in the Matrix films, do you think it would be fitting to add a section that highlights the parallels between the Architect and the Demiurge?

I for one think that the similarities are fairly obvious, but since there's no rush (after all, I don't imagine that wikipedia's going to up and run away any time soon) I thought I'd run it by the rest of wiki first. RebelTLF 1:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a source for relating stuff like this? I mean, where are you going to add this stuff to? A new "gnostic demiurge" section or something where more people can relate the character to whatever they find it makes sense? VdSV9•♫ 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Plot corrections

I just made some intensive changes to this page, and I wanted to share some important points to it.

Please rewatch the last two movies. The Architect is the master control program for the Matrix, but he is NOT the Source. Neither is the Deus Ex Machina, although it has more power than the Architect (otherwise the Architect would have dispensed with Smith a long time before he became a problem). Deus is a representative for the Source as the Architect is the primary representative for the Matrix (Neo never talks directly to the Source throughout the movies, although Deus is probably pretty close). The Architect has always been a middleman. For change to truly happen, it had to come from the Machine City itself. Neo returns to the Source of the Machine's power, the Machine City, and, unlike his predecessors, skips over the management of the Matrix's power, the Architect. It all came down to choices, and, in the end, Neo's different choice from his predecessors led him to a new path and its end. Spencerian 15:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

plot reasoning unclear

So the oracle's task is to give hope to the population of Zion while enlisting them to seek The One ,so she can tell him he needs to return to the source so the cycle can continue. yet this cycling is unclear to me. Neo's choice:

• Reintegrade(killing him?) with the source (so the source can build a safer from The One 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)

Basically it seems the Matrix has to be reloaded every so often (about every hundred years); otherwise it will crash, killing everyone connected to it. For some reason, the only way the crash can be prevented is for the One to transfer the "Prime Program" to the Source (whatever the "Prime Program" is, and it's not made clear how a human could "carry" its "code" anywhere). Whether this means that the next iteration of the Matrix will be more reliable or will last longer is speculation.

It's a bit of a roundabout way of doing things, and it doesn't really make that much sense if you think about it (so the next inhabitants of Zion wouldn't notice that there just happens to be a huge underground cavern just the right size for a settlement?). I'm one of those people who was quite disappointed and unsatisfied with the revelations in Reloaded and Revolutions. But that's the explanation provided in the film, anything else is just speculation. --Nick R^Talk 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The firl given rational is contradictory and not complete ,yet the presented form is very entertaining. Was just checking to see if there is something I missed. Maybe these internal contradictions should be incorporated in the article. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

1% of ALL HUMANS?

If the current Matrix is modeled after the human civilization of the late 20th century, then that world would have around 6 billion humans. If this is true, then 0.01*1 billion = 6 MILLION HUMANS! How is this possible if Zion is a city of 500,000, many of whom are native born? I--Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)'m assuming that 1) the Matrix does not actually have 6 billion inhabitants, 2) or the Machines, through their many control mechanisms, eliminate the vast majority of the 6 million that become conscious of the Matrix.

(Above was unsigned)

1. Suspension of disbelief. :-)
2. A scale model? :-)
3. They are nearing the end of the war, after all, and the Matrix was becoming increasingly unstable, especially since the One showed up.
4. Where are you getting 500,000 from, anyway? I don't see it in the article, or in Zion, and I don't remember it from the movies (had to delete them to free up some disk space :P).

--Jack (Cuervo) 10:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, the population is actually 250,000, as seen here: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f42/t21042.html and in Reloaded and Revolutions. I have no idea what you're talking about...the only thing I understand is that the Matrix is growing unstable. So if the Matrix is growing unstable, that suddenly reduces the world's population? Blusafe 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense that the general health of the population of the Matrix would be linked to the Matrix, doesn't it? I mean, considering the effect the mind could have on the environment, couldn't the environment have a similar effect on the mind (think: jump program)? *shrug* That was my reasoning, anyway. To look at it another way, the life support systems for the pods could be hooked in somehow. Either way, I'm just throwing out guesses. :-) --Johnny (Cuervo) 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

dont you think it is better to ask why dont the machines simply kill the one upon creation? This futile attempt to further rationalize a non rational film is a waste of time ,even it's writers said that..(:--Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, the one percent of people who are released from the matrix die soon after leaving it. After all, if someone wakes up naked in a pod with muscles so weak that they can barely move, I doubt they are going to survive very long on their own. Also, when Neo first wakes up in the pod, the machines don't seem worried and simply flush him down a drain into a big sewer like area. This implies that whenever people wake up, the machines just flush them down the drain. I think the only humans who survive and make it back to Zion are the ones who are rescued by people like Morpheus.

Can't they grow as many people as they like? Kausill 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

EXTREMELY COMPLICATED

Hard to follow!!!!!!!!!!!

While i have not seen the movie yet, i have read over the script. It seemed a bit easier to follow than everyone said.

But thats just me. --J Assassin 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice article

This article makes a lot more sense, because the Architect's polysyllabic babblings (while all english), are too esoteric.

) Piepants 06:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Piepants

True, but his prose adds depth to the level of control he exacts upon his world. The concept is perhaps akin to creating a character of insurmountable ability so as to posit that defying him would mean certain death. Kind of like spitting on God. --206.40.119.252 10:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks Aaron 7.18.2006

Was The Architect in the First Movie?

In the first Matrix film Neo, at the police station, is seen in a bank of monitors, but no police station would have so many unlabelled color monitors for a single camera, implying that it was The Architect watching Neo from his room of monitors. (The Wachowski's probably hadn't yet pinned down the look of the room and its monitors yet.) And was Neo talking to The Architect on the phone at the end of the first movie? If not, then who? This article also needs to make it clear that The Architect is not Deus Ex Machina in physical form, as explained here

I recognised the bank of monitors being of likeness to the Architect's room too (although, on a flat wall in the first film). There must be some significance to it worth noting. Exactly what it is, I haven't the foggiest! Bob f it 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought, too. Kausill 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding edits

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, the reason I edited the text is because it's ripped right from the movie's script, in the Architect's complex choice of words. Better to keep it in layman's terms so that it's easier to understand rather than it to sound like someone sat down and wrote the article while they were listening to the movie's audio or read a script online and copied it. --Snake Liquid 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am actually, quite happy with bringing it to layman's terms. Sometimes I personally favor direct quoting but regarding the actual reporting or wikipedia language, if you will, that surrounds such quotes..... I have had a hell of a time trying to sift through and make it simple. So I content myself with binge cleaning every now and again.

I definitely appreciate your assistance! However, the reason I changed your edit (and did so again), is that "avoided and ignored until the last minute," can carry the connotation that the Machines were ignorant of Zion or were dismissing Zion. This is not the case. Their plans even take Zion into account, as the article already states; their plans called for "allowing" the humans the (unconscious) choice to leave the Matrix or stay a part of it and when those who chose to leave grew too numerous, "the One" would be born, and he would reset the Matrix while the machines killed off Zion.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul of page

This article has long been sidetracked; If it is about the Architect, it should not be dwelling so much on things not directly related to him or his actions. For instance, I just cut out a lot of material that should be in The Oracle's article.

There was also a lot of content pertaining to the movies and Neo, in particular, which could go under their respective pages.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

His description vs. that of the Oracle

I changed the parenthetical comparison of the Architects appearance to those respective to a number of other, relatively well-known characters or figures in the fourth sentence of the first, introductory paragraph of this entry from:

[…]he appears as a white-bearded old man (bearing a vague similarity to some Christian depictions of God, Sigmund Freud, Uncle Sam, Colonel Sanders, Norbert Wiener (inventor of cybernetics), and Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, plus diametrically opposed to the preferred shell of the Oracle, that of a black woman)

…to:

[…]God; Sigmund Freud; Uncle Sam; Colonel Sanders; Norbert Wiener, inventor of cybernetics; and Internet pioneer Vint Cerf—virtually diametrically opposed to the preferred shell of the Oracle, that of a black woman

…the obvious differences being:

1) The elements of the list are now separated by semicolons and not commas.

Admittedly, my undrestanding and use of English's standard dialects and their rules of punctuation aren't perfect, but I found the phrase "[…]bearing a vague similarity to some Christian depictions of God, [etc.]" confusing. Cursorily, the original version of the sentence could seem to be saying that there were some Christian depictions of the other figures.

2) The replacement of the list's end-comma and the word plus at the end of that list and the beginning of the comparison of the Architect's appearance to the Oracle's.

With all due respect to the original writer, plus seems colloquial. Others, obviously, may disagree.

3) The introduction of the qualifier "virtually" to the description of his appearance to the Oracles being "diametrically opposed."

This is a more philosophical point than a grammatical one: with respect to the original writer, I strongly contend "blacks" and "whites" aren't diametically opposed, except in the usual mindset of many Euro- and, probably, Afrocentric societies, and neither are "men" and "women," except in the context of reproductive roles. It's not that these differences aren't currently important sociologically, and I don't necessarily disagree with the implication that the writers intended to present this contrast; I'm just think that language guides thought, so we should be very careful with our language sometimes.

Also, they're both old, both bipedal, it's not that one's skinny and one's fat, and so on, so they're not actually diametrically opposed in appearance. :P Again, I don't necessarily disagree that their appearances are in intentional contrast, just that they're not literally diametrically opposed. -Dan 05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders while looking at the history of this page, I accidentally marked my addition of this section as a minor edit; not to sound grandiose, but as the apparent current largest single addition to the page, it might not be a minor edit. (Yes, I realize how incongrous the scope of the change in the article is with the size of my entry here describing it. DX)

Anyway, just FYI.-Dan 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vint Cerf

Why are the comparisions to real life people gone? The Architect looks far too much like Vint Cerf for it to be a coincidence. He may not look like Louis Pastuer, but many wikipedians agree that he resembles Colonel Sanders. -Buttle 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Vint Cerf stuff has been mentioned in media and belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.164.147 (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Colonel Sanders comparison (unsigned; originally from the "Plot corrections" section above)

I just removed that comment. It's not sourced and it speculation. It was interesting....but....still speculation.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  23:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the Architect Create Neo?

This page says that the Architect designed Neo so that he could reboot the system. But, I thought that Neo was an anomally that arises every hundred years or so, and that the Architect, unable to create an equation in which the anomally wouldn't apear, simply designed the Matrix around the anomally. Also, I thought that in giving the anomally the choice of either saving a few people or killing everyone, the architect was simply ensuring that the anomally would be too busy trying to rebuild Zion to bother him, while he is rebooting the Matrix. Am I right or did I just misunderstand the movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.60.160 (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Even today, this article is ambiguous about this aspect of the movie. Whereas one section of the article mentions:

One significant anomaly appeared two-thirds into the Matrix first cycle. A man was born with control of additional Matrix programming that actually belonged with the Source. The Architect tried to remove this anomaly, to no avail. However, he would find a way to work with this human and return the critical Source code he carried for the eventual reloading of the Matrix.

Another section of the same article gives a different viewpoint:

it was the Architect who programmed The One that would fulfill these prophecies. The One was made carrying not only the source code of the Matrix "Prime Program", which gave him his outstanding powers over the Matrix, but also with a profound attachment to humanity that would later motivate him to fulfill the prophecies being spread by the Oracle.

So the question is still unanswered by the article: did the Architect create "The One" to tackle the Zion problem, or was the Oracle and the Prophecy of "The One" created to tackle the human being that would eventually appear, having powers to control the Matrix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.38.52 (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Architect did not create Neo

It is stated quite clearly that Neo is the result of an anomaly inherent to the programming of the Matrix. He is the result of the subconscious choice whether to accept the program or not that was granted to all humans. The prophecy of the One was created as a means to control an otherwise uncontrollable anomaly, thus safeguarding the system. He was not 'created' by the Architect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentasm (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Right, and I think his lack of control over them is well-symbolized by him sitting instead of standing or looming over them. Neo looks down to him instead of the other way around. 58.7.106.12 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

THE ARCHITECT IN THE MXO GAME

Hi guys, could someone link to the Matrix Online game here (I don't know how to do it) and create a small sub-paragraph explaining how the Architect does occasionally turn up in this game too, as it is supposed to be a continution of the Movie series. The Architect is the Machine organization Boss in the game, just as implied in the movies, and sometimes he talks to Machinist redpill operatives. Thanks.Oposie (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Oposie

Vint Cerf?

I don't quite understand why Vint Cerf is related to this, other than the fact that the Architect somewhat resembles him. If someone could explain to me why he is under see also, it would be appreciated. 226Trident_talk 12:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sixth One redundancy in language.

I just fixed a serious issue with pronouns. I actually got confused and thought it was suggesting that Neo could not see past the equations.

This section also has a lot of redundancy in its language. She says, she tells him, she also says. This happens four times in a row. Someone needs to sit through and fix it. I don't have the time right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.235.173 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"with affluent vocabulary" stricken

"Affluent" means wealthy. A rich vocabulary means a large vocabulary. In this case, adding the phrase "with affluent vocabulary" not only uses the wrong word (a vocabulary does not possess money, therefore it cannot be affluent; perhaps the writer meant the vocabulary of an affluent person, but that makes no sense either, as someone might be affluent and have an objectively smaller vocabulary than average). Even using a more appropriate word (a rich vocabulary, for instance) adds nothing to the sentence except extra time required to read it. Less is more, as they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.15.55 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Redundancies

This article has a lot of duplicated info. 2 sections, "character" and "character history," are basically the same content. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I addressed some issues in the article but still needs work. A good copy editor could be of use here. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)