7

contains spoilers from Reloaded and the Animatrix

In the Animatrix it is shown that the first things similar to hovercrafts are built by Zero-One Heavy Industry Corporation, combining "a helipod" with an "air-jet".

Versatran

Later in Reloaded, Neo talks about the Architect briefly about the future of Zion.

By that point the events already undergone would mean Neo was proposed to a difficult task which he would need more ships than those then available.

But if you check the nameplate of Neo's ship, it says:

Nebu

Mark III No 11. Made in the usa - Year 2069.

But Neo would most likely not be able to build such a ship in the USA in 2069. The ship is worn. It's not just out of the factories. It is more like a replica of an ol' matey...

How is Neo supposed to get old ships? How are they found in this condition?

If it's the machine storing these ships (because it is definietly not Zion), then why are they not using them for the war, or to build better squiddies? They would have the time to study the ship however they want.

  • 1. Weary means "tired". Perhaps you meant worn? 2. Why should it be Neo who builds these ships? He wasn't even alive yet. – Martha Jun 9 '13 at 16:19
  • @Martha thanks, my bad! I'm not native (blush) 2) that's my point, but it would be spoiler for Reloaded to tell why. – n611x007 Jun 9 '13 at 19:54
  • 4
  • This makes me wonder, how do the machines repair the huge holes they bore through the ceiling of the hovercraft dock? – Xantec Jun 10 '13 at 13:41
  • 1
    unrelated, but the "model numbers" of the different hovercraft engines/reactors are biblical references. Mark chapter 3, verse 11. – acolyte Jun 11 '13 at 20:56
9

You're failing to see the whole picture, much like the humans in the movies. Because the whole thing is a setup. The machines supply everything that the humans need/find to create Zion, which must include all the old ships seen in the movies.

To get an idea of the machines point of view think of Zion as being like an ant farm. The whole thing is false but the ants have no idea that it is not their natural environment. At any time it can be destroyed, instantly if need be. The machines are sure not to give the humans any really effective weapons:

Trinity: Electro-Magnetic Pulse, disables any electrical system within the blast radius, only weapon we have against the machines.

The machines are just playing with the humans, just like a nasty kid with a magnifying glass. They use an attack that takes time to complete in order to force the humans into panicking and gathering together to defend their holdings.

The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Those are the words of an inhuman machine.

In short, the machines supply the humans with only enough ships to think they are winning.

  • But this is not completely true. By the time Neo had his talk with the Architect, Zion was not reached. If Zion could be destroyed "instantly", then by the time Neo leaves, it would be destroyed "instantly". But it is not, furthermore EMP gets rid of the machines. It is an effective weapon against them. They would eventually win, but if they would be that advanced why would they let themselves to be wasted with a battle that has no real meaning? – n611x007 Jun 10 '13 at 14:49
  • Because they're playing a game: 'Kill All Humans' and they get points for the least use of resources. – user14002 Jun 10 '13 at 16:01
  • uh, really? Well, then, does Smith consuming the whole Matrix' processing power count? – n611x007 Jun 10 '13 at 16:04
  • Smith is playing a different game: 'Kill Neo at any cost' – user14002 Jun 11 '13 at 8:09
  • I mean, whichever machine is betting on Sentinels is losing hard due to the total loss of usefulness in energy consumption. Its pal is winning. Or do they like playing alone? In a surely crowded casino, so many concurrent games. – n611x007 Jun 11 '13 at 8:30
1

From what I can understand, based on answers from the Architect, the machines have to have copies of the hovercrafts. It sounds like the robot army destroys Zion every iteration of the Matrix, and then something is needed to help rebuild it. There is no way humans start from absolutely nothing, they are most likely given a base level of technology by the robots, including a hovercraft and very important systems utilities (water, electricity and sanitation).

  • As a side note, I don't think the squids are the best attack force the robots could produce, by I bet they are hella' versatile. It is probably a much better use of resources making a jack of all trades over units that have only one function. – Sydenam Jun 9 '13 at 19:49
  • 2
    But Trinity says, Killing machine designed for one thing. Although Dozer adds, search and destroy. This was always dissonant for me. – n611x007 Jun 10 '13 at 14:45
  • There is a problem with your side-not comment. If they could build better machines than Sentinels, then why do they not use those after Neo leaves the Architect's place? By this time Zion wasn't even attacked. They could just order to fill the tunnels with "the real thing" and instantly kill everyone. But they didn't. – n611x007 Jun 10 '13 at 14:50
  • @naxa Just because they can build "the real thing" doesn't mean they will. That isn't sustainable, to consume resources to do something, when calculated, they have determined they can already do with their jack of all trades machines. The point of the series is they have a limited amount of power, if they were to waste it on a machine that would out live its usefulness they would certainly be acting illogical. – Sydenam Jun 19 '13 at 0:36
1

I think the reason the Machines don't develop/build new types of machines is because the Sentinels (squiddies) have evolved to a point that makes them suitable to their main task, which is to kill humans and bring down any hover ship they catch.

As for the question regarding the ships, if you consider in the first film, the tunnels run for thousands of kilometres across the whole of Earth, so it's feasible that from the initial war, through to the 5 preceding Zions and the current 6th, that there are probably dozens or maybe hundreds of Hoverships left derelict across the planet.

  • Ah, but the question is then, if they're using real (derelict) ships then how come the humans don't realise how much time has passed? It seems far more likely that the hovercraft we see on screen are built by the machines and intended to look retro, but not too retro. – Valorum Jan 26 '15 at 15:19
-1

It seems to be more like a script error than the supply of any technology from machine to people. The author of the question refers to the animatrix, but it can be perceived only as a high-quality fan product, but not an official explanation for the events of the trilogy.

Although the film speaks about the destruction of Zion for the umpteenth time, and this moment looks strained. From the point of view of any person, there is no explanation for why the machines kill people every time and enable them to be reproduced. From the point of view of the machines, it looks even stranger, unless robots call Zion each city of people met by them underground.

Therefore, if you dismiss philosophical fantasies, just leave it "as is", because there is no rational explanation for where people have every time after destruction a fleet of hovercraft - no (like actually recreating a new Zion each time in parallel with the new version of the matrix).

  • 4
    I still don't understand how this answers the question. I think you're saying "no" but I'm not confident of that. – DavidW Jun 14 '19 at 16:37
  • There is no answer to this question. This is just a script error at the concept of the film itself. Just like the whole idea with several versions of the matrix. Using people as batteries looks more realistic than the fact that AI each time destroy and resurrect a Zion. – Олег Анатольевич Jun 14 '19 at 16:48
  • @DavidW - Agreed. Unfortunately this reads more like a criticism of the film than a serious answer to the question asked by OP. While 'frame-challenges' are acceptable, demanding that the elements of the film or its supplementary material 'don't count' in some fashion needs to be backed up with a bunch of evidence. – Valorum Jun 14 '19 at 17:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.