Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
AnyMal
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 15,780
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
The movie was shot in California and Australia. I hear they have very strict environmental and fuel efficiency standards, so it makes sense :laugh:
Thanks for some of the suggestions. honestly, I haven't been this confused since that guy just caps Leo DiCaprio at the end of The Departed because he's an agent for Jack Nicholson too.
I was just thinking the same thing.. If you need a spoiler alert for an 8 year old movie that just about every tech nerd has seen, then you just need to get over yourself.
FallenHero
Diamond Member
- Jan 2, 2006
- 5,659
- 0
- 0
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Oh yeah, thanks.
*throws out copy of FF7*
I guess I don't need to get around to playing that one...
That made me laugh!
And it reminded me of the middle of Inside Man where it turns out Chris Plummer made money by helping the Nazis and it wasn't really a bank robbery at all.
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
Legendary
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2002
- 7,019
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
The movie specified that the dead are "fed intravenously to the living"
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Don't you remember? They fed the dead people to the live people.Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
Normally, we would see this as a serious violation of the first law of thermodynamics. But since the machines were more or less in charge, they could have their own congress, and make any law they wanted. So it's fine.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
With a Sentinel Firewall
Concerning energy, I don't know why they went with inefficient humans as a source of power. Our digestive tracts are not particularly efficient, and the machines had fusion technology. It seemed like they had to invest a LOT of resources in maintaining their human farm. If they insist on using USDA Certified organic power, wouldn't it have made more sense to keep another species captive, maybe one without sentience? Maybe keep a bunch of horses, or better yet, cows. The Matrix would just be a big pasture, like the default WindowsXP background. They get their power source, there's no need for a huge resource-intensive computer simulation, and the "generators" are too stupid to do much of anything except eat and sleep.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 67
- 91
1 - perfection
2 - only good as a lead into 3
2 and 3 really have to be watched together non-stop.
Before 3 was in theaters, it was fun reading about theories knowing what 1 and 2 were about. 3 answers ALOT of questions.
The energy balance is still negative.Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
The movie specified that the dead are "fed intravenously to the living"
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: Howard
The energy balance is still negative.Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
The movie specified that the dead are "fed intravenously to the living"
They're running off the amount of body heat and bio-electricity we produce. Not the ATP produced within the cells.
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Howard
The energy balance is still negative.Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
The movie specified that the dead are "fed intravenously to the living"
They're running off the amount of body heat and bio-electricity we produce. Not the ATP produced within the cells.
While using humans as an energy source might not be the best option, I tend to think of it as the machines' ultimate revenge.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: villageidiot111
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Howard
The energy balance is still negative.Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
The movie specified that the dead are "fed intravenously to the living"
They're running off the amount of body heat and bio-electricity we produce. Not the ATP produced within the cells.
While using humans as an energy source might not be the best option, I tend to think of it as the machines' ultimate revenge.
That, and the first also states that the process is "combined with a form of fusion"
Where does the body heat come from? And how much "bio-electricity" can we even produce?Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Howard
The energy balance is still negative.Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Howard
Whatever energy we would be able to produce (assuming a possible method of extraction) would have be first extracted from the food we eat. Of course, this is not a perfectly efficient process, so they would never even come close to breaking even.Originally posted by: jjones
Well, I don't know how good of an energy source we are, but it seems like the machines would expend much more energy in producing and maintaining humans than they would get in return. I mean they have all of mother earth to use as an energy resource without any environmental concerns whatsoever. I would think they would dispense with humans altogether, but then there wouldn't be a movie.Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, of all the plot's twists and turns this on made sense to me. It is true, humans produce a certain amount of BTU's which theoretically can be converted into energy. Using humans as the energy source requires much less "manufacturing" effort (self-reproduction) and upkeep (feeding tubes) and a single pair of humans can reproduce dozens of times over the lifetime.
Just my theory
Where does all the food come from, anyway? There's no sunlight, so either the food is chemically generated, which requires another source of energy... or sunlight is artifically produced, which again requires a source of energy, most likely electricity. Wind, nuclear, geothermal, fossil etc. power are viable, but none of these are mentioned in the films IIRC.
The movie specified that the dead are "fed intravenously to the living"
They're running off the amount of body heat and bio-electricity we produce. Not the ATP produced within the cells.
I always thought they were telling us that the 'real world' is actually another matrix, and that's why he still has his powers, or at least some powers.
Bingo. The "real world" was no more real than the Matrix.
Just look at what the Oracle told Neo about the history of the Matrix. The early incarnations failed because mankind rejected the principle of matrix, they knew it was fake. So, in order to achieve a stable system, mankind had to choose to willingly submit to it.
The solution eventually arrived at was to create two levels to the matrix. One, it the patently fake world of the Matrix. The other is a very good imitation of what truly exists, The Real World. At least in terms of physical laws. Mankind was thus given a choice between an obvious fake and a near fake. As seen at the end, they chose the near fake, without ever realizing it was no more real than the Matrix. Neo was developed at the catalyst to bring about that choice.
It's debatable whether Neo was human or not, though I would have to say Not. His influence of machines and vision in the Real World would seem to tie him closer to the machines than humanity. Besides, Smith demonstrated that a machine can move from the Matrix to the Real World and take on a body. Neo was just a machine that started in the Real World. That also explains the conversations with the Architect and Merovingian, about Neo being one in a series.
The Real World being fake also neatly explains the recreation of Zion several times and why the machines never left the surface of the earth after winning the war. Also why there is only the singular machine city and matrix. Seems kind of silly when you have a planet at your disposal.
This is why at the end of Revolutions, I wanted the Architect to walk up to the Oracle in the park and say something along the lines of "Despite everything that happened, none of them caught on that none of this was real." It would have been the best line to end on and would have truly fvcked with the fans.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter