They're making a Matrix 5.

[Tyndmyr]

“Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand *why* you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.”

Regardless of the philosophy, the structure of the story is still that of a hero's journey. You can say the choice isn't a choice, and layer on some philosophical theorizing, but from a story structure perspective, none of that matters. It fits the template.

We still see the hero grow, accept his role, fight back, etc. The precise details of how will vary from story to story, and that's great, but the latter films just...are missing most of the story. This is a problem that grows worse the further we get into the sequels. At least early on, we had the changes in Smith as at least one character with an arc, so that's....at least a little bit of a story, even if it isn't as strong with the primary characters.

By episode 4, we have no story at all. There's...a weird bit of rehashing the story from the first movie, which we already know, and can simply rewatch, there is no real benefit to slapping it in here....and then there is some lame love conquers all bit. A few tropes mashed together is not quite the same thing as character growth, and a memory wipe to retread exactly the same ground is pretty lazy.

Smith destroyed himself for even if he had all knowledge he could not understand the values and thus the choices Neo made and thus he could not see the trap.

If one is taking the sequels seriously, then Smith never actually destroyed himself, so this theme just doesn't work.

Why are you asking? These aren't unanswered questions in context of Reloaded and Revolutions. The original asks if Neo is the promised hero in the war of man against machine - he is! Animatrix shows that the conflict might have more facets to it

The Animatrix certainly had some good potential. Fun ideas that were not wholly explored, but yes, I can totally buy an origin story that begins with humanity being jerks. No quarrel with that.

Reloaded only manages to produce a new arc by erasing the conclusion of the first film. This is literally the same mistake made again in Matrix 4, albeit done much more lazily in 4. Erasing the progress only so that it can be done again is not a new story.

Firstly, both the original and the sequels are perfectly aware of the philosophical traditions they're part of, containing obvious references to Plato's cave, gnostic idealism and their equivalents in Eastern Philosophy. Second, in cinematography, there is a distinction between plot and story. "Plot" is the sequence of events, the what, when and how, while "story" is the themes, characterization and emotional reactions, the who, why and feel.

No. By definition, a plot is the sequence of events that make up a story. They are the same. The words are synonyms.

Where the movie is lacking in story, it is also equivalent to say that it is lacking in plot.

The philosophical discussion with the Architecht? That's story, tons of it, right there.

No. It's merely exposition. Exposition from someone who is adversarial and, by definition, not trustworthy and attempting to exert control. This narratively, serves the purpose of a confrontation...but instead it is a lecture. It lacks the energy of the hero having a tense meal with the villain, instead it makes the odd choice of having the hero simply be wholly reactive, listening to the antagonist and reacting to him.

One can tell a story of "I went to class today, and listened to a lecture" but that's not much of a story. Exposition by itself is not a tale.

In movie writing, scenes have one of three goals, to illuminate character, to advance the plot, and to expand the world. Good writers try to do accomplish more than one goal at once, but only the second is story. The filmbook in Dune explaining the features of the world is not the story of Dune. It's just some minor worldbuilding so the story can be told.

You can dislike the scene all you want but if you think that discussion isn't or doesn't have a story to it, you are just wrong.

Placing words in sequence is not a story. A definition in a dictionary imparts knowledge, and chains words together, but it tells no story.

One could argue that the architect scene is worldbuilding. It does tell us a little about the world. Fine. This comes far too late in the story for this to be relevant to setting up the story, and it's far too long, so it's pretty much a failure from this, but it most definitely does not tell us a story. Referencing philosophy books is not telling a story.