The character of Switch was originally meant to be male in the real world and female in the Matrix. Warner Brothers put a stop to that.
196
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Not sure why, would have been a pretty cool addition to the universe.
I can imagine nowadays people saying it's "too woke" though.
Back then :
It won't bring in the same money, don't put your weird tranny shit
Now :
This is marketable in certain demographics, but we've already met the diversity quota, so no thanks. Besides, we don't want it to be too "political" and lose our dependable fanbase.
Ah yes, famously apolitical movie The Matrix in the entirely apolitical genre of dystopian sci-fi.
Dystopian? Ah yes, no one was turning a profit. Very sad.
Although that Cyrus character was quite the go getter.
I can think of one reasonable reason for it. They'd be harder to identify between the two versions. It makes some sense to not change the look that much (or the actor if that was the plan) to not confuse the audience.
Also have to pay and credit two actors for one role, which might get sticky, especially with awards.
I mean you credit them as 2 different roles, Switch (In-Matrix) and Switch (IRL). Happens all the time for different ages of the same characters being portrayed by younger and older actors.
How does it fit trans day?
The Wachowskis are both trans and the matrix can famously be read as a trans allegory
How’s that an allegory? Taking the red pill is waking to trans reality or something?
Edit: thanks everyone for your responses, it was eye opening. Time for a rewatch.
antidepressants vs HRT
I was typing up a thesis, but this really sums it up, doesn't it lmao
The leading brand of estrogen in the 90s was red.
OH. Hah, I always thought this was one detail they got wrong for some reason, considering estradiol is bluegreen. Should have considered the context back then.
There's a lot. Like the way Agent Smith (representing the system) constantly disrespects Neo's identity and deadnames him.
Taking the red pill (estrogen at the time was a red pill) enables you to see that a lot of society is a facade and there are depths beyond it. In the real world that could be things like learning that there are people and lives that society refused to acknowledge like trans people
Switch was meant to be trans (hence the name I think) and their in matrix visual identity was different to "reality". But corpos didn't like it.
I've always wondered the same. I've watched the trilogy multiple times looking for the trans parallels, but I don't really get it.
Thanks for choosing the right wording! It's certainly one of the ways to read it. And it's also a good idea to sometimes search for a new matrix theory and then doing a re-watch. It is mindblowing how many different, sometimes completely crazy yet beautiful narratives the original trilogy can fit to, all while also being enjoyable as is without any.
The movie is a massive allegory for being trans.
Why am I suddenly so fucking old?
It feels like it was longer ago to me, because the Trump presidency and the pandemic seemed to take forever. 2020-2022 alone felt like a decade.
The problem is it didn't happen suddenly 😭
The fifties of Back to Future are closer to the eighties of Back to the Future than their eighties are to now. You're welcome.
Reading this after my fifth day as a father to a newborn baby has brought my brain to a hard limit. I am going to sleep now.
There’s a good joke here somewhere that ends “Instead, only try to realize the truth… there is no dick”
Or different body parts or gendered terms as appropriate for the speaker, of course.
It is too bad they weren't able to make Switch a trans character.
Yeah, I don’t think I’ve heard about the trans plan for the character before. But, it sounds like the perfect kind of thing to have in the Matrix. :(
Another major plot point that got shit-canned: The original idea was that the humans would be distributed computing power for the machines, not batteries. That makes a lot more sense, but the studio thought that explanation would be too technical (i.e. confusing) for the audience.
I simultaneously wish they didn’t change that, and understand that they were probably right to do it. I bet if they focus group tested it with random consumers, an 80/20 split preferred the battery over the distributed compute node.
I mean, to the layperson, describing neutral networks, distributed computing, system redundancy, parallelism, and everything else probably sounds like Star Trek or Terminator technobabble.
Maybe not so much in modern times dice “AI” language models and image synthesizers have put some of those terms on the evening news.
They wouldn't have to explain it in any detail. It's not like they explained the battery concept in any detail. All they need is, "they hijacked your brain for its computing power, you may notice you need less sleep outside the matrix."
chainsaw revving in the background
"Not like this... Not like this!"
I mean, that version works pretty well for the Wachowskis.
Doesn't even put "Switch" in the pictures
We're talking about the realness of reality here.
This gender stuff seems rather petty, comparatively.
No, the two went together for a very long time.
Because if the nature of your reality is that physical embodiment is an illusion and that all which really matters is what's inside you, then gender conformity isn't an important issue at all.
For example, this was a saying from an early 'heretical' tradition of Christianity which claimed that we are in a non-physical copy of an original physical world as created by an intelligence the original humanity brought forth (quite simulation hypothesis-y):
Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter."
The idea here was that this realm is the copy of an original that we don't enter in some transition but are literally born into at birth (a rather radically different notion of "born again"). But this would necessarily mean that we are only in the image of the past, but are not foundationally male or female at all, as it's a temporary embodiment recreating the past.
The tradition's key point was to understand the nature of reality and in so understanding to realize that there will be an afterlife, but very close behind that point was pushing the importance of self-knowledge and self-truth:
But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.
So while yes, the notion of reality being simulated is a very big idea objectively, the subjective implications of that being the case are certainly tied to personal identity and in shedding the constraints of physical embodiment on how we define that identity.
Not really. Understanding gender stuff helped me figure out the nature of reality in several ways.
First, it made me realize that we don't have the freedom to choose what we want. We don't choose to desire food or water. We don't choose who we love or what gender feels right. I didn't choose to be trans, and I can't choose to be cis. Like not drinking water, I could avoid transitioning, but I'd die. If not doing something results in death, than there is no real choice on whether or not we can do it.
Second, I realized that we can never have certainty about anything, even what we want or who we are. I thought I was cis for a long time, and I didn't have total certainty that I was trans until I came out and felt better as a result. I didn't know I was a girl or wanted to be a girl, only that I wanted to be trans so I could be a girl.
Third, it helped me understand the true nature of evolution. It is the source of our very understanding of good and bad, right and wrong, but it is a cruel system of pain and suffering fuelled by blood sacrifice. Evolution, despite being the original good, is not good for individuals. Understanding "the good" tells us little about how to be good, ethical people.
I don't give a damn what our creator wants for us, it sucks. I feel a similar way about the Christian conception of God: I don't think anybody should look to a higher authority for their morals. There is no intrinsic good, only good from specific perspectives.
If all that doesn't touch on similar themes as the Matrix and its sequels, I don't know what does.
I think that you are rendering your personal drama in inflated terms. A tempest in your own personal philosophical teapot. It is large and important because it's up in your face. An ant on your nose that you mistake for Godzilla. A trick of perspective.
I mean, people's experiences of romance or their struggles with faith are types of "personal drama" that have informed philosophy and literature for millenia. There's no "trick" in how meaningful gender is in people's lives. Tell any feminist throughout history that their gender hasn't played a large or important role in their life. Is they patriarchal oppression just a tempest in women's philosophical teapot? Are the thousands of dollars in medical expenses I have to pay to not hate my body to the point of suicidal depression an ant I am mistaking for Godzilla?
I'm sorry my biggest problems don't seem important to you. I'll talk about philosophy in regards to trolly switches or impossible hotels or ship maintenance or boulders we have to push up mountains instead. You know, things that matter in our lives 😶
My only problem with this meme is that it says one movie, but then one of the screen shots is from The Matrix Reloaded not The Matrix.