It has been perhaps too long, and certainly a long time since I watched the Matrix movies. However, that time and distance has given me perspective, as it usually does.

I just finished watching The Matrix Reloaded which I have not seen from beginning to end in one sitting since I saw it in the theatres. I enjoyed it, but I saw the seams. Maybe it's because of how far CGI technology has advanced since the movie was made, but it was apparent where the effects were holding up the movie without any support from the plot, the suspense, the acting, or the magic.

I recall watching the original film The Matrix recently--sometime in the past year. I enjoyed it just as much as I did the first time, saw no flaws in the effects, and didn't see the wires (figuratively speaking).

Why? Why this simple, seemingly impossible differentiation? The movies were made at nearly the same time, with the same technology, with the same writers (we think?), with the same actors, with the same basic plot. What makes the difference?

Of course it's a matter of opinion, but I think it's fairly straightforward: the sequels were fabricated while the original was inspired.

I say this from experiencing art in many mediums: after success, attempts to duplicate it (or with some artists to continue in the same medium) are shallow and plain in comparison to the original. I think this truly stems from the motivations behind creation: meaning only that intention is everything, and the creative energy we draw upon to form something from our own being has such an intense and fundamental effect on the product (and indeed the process) that it is simple to tell the difference on any level.

I draw upon a relevant example: Halo 2. The original was inspired. They wanted to give the world a fun, different experience like none we had ever seen before. They wanted everyone to have fun, be enthralled, and come back for more again and again. And we did, and they did. It was a smash hit, and in the minds of many one of the most innovative FPS games ever created. The second was miscalculated. It improved in some ways, but in many many other ways it was neglected. It was glitchy, it had a painfully pedantic plot with no life to it, and there were no less than three levels that took place in the exact same places (or in places invariable from some others). The multiplayer--good. But that's not enough for a great game, and by any measure that's what they wanted to give us.

I think the message here is simple enough--the creative wellspring and our intentions are just as important as the product (if not more so) and they deserve our attention, our criticism, and our discussion just as much as the final product does.