Why didn’t the robots use a different animal other than humans as a source for energy?
Well, could you imagine the matrix if it was starring orangutans?
edit- just remembered the cast
It is for possible logical fallacies such as this that I watch almost no movies or television. If I cannot accept the basic premises, I find little entertainment value, personally. I do not believe this is in any way a handicap, though. My time is better spent in other pursuits, in my opinon.
well for one thing most life forms were killed upon the darkening of the skies and the proccessing of the water.
So why don’t the robots just club them over the head a few times so the humans can’t plot against them? 
I know something you dont know.
After a long special goal, i can finally revel what happens on the third and final
Matrix…More later. 
well, it wouldn’t make for a very good movie. Kinda the same effect as " Soylent Green is people!!!"
its better to have your enemy work for you.
Because the Wachowski Brothers are SHIT writers, plain and simple. Take the first Matrix movie - 10 minutes of vaguely interesting exposition lifted almost word for word from an introduction to Descartes followed by 90 minutes of action sequences spun together at the end with a romance plot that has been COMPLETELY ignored up until that point. To hinge the entire ending of a movie on an element of the plot that has just been tacked onto the script at the end with no build-up scenes, no preparation, no backstory is TERRIBLE writing.
I’m amazed than anyone thinks of the Matrix trilogy as being particularly important because in basic filmmaking terms it fails time and time again. It’s worse than AI for heaven’s sake. Finding logical holes in the plot isn’t hard because, by their own admission, the two writers just chucked in everything they could think of and hoped for the best.
The second movie is even worse, as it is solely expositional dialogue - fight sequence - expositional dialogue - chase sequence - expositional dialogue - fight sequence - expositional dialogue…
It’s as though apart from having a character tell the audience what they need to know, the writer hadn’t a clue how to further the plot. It’s like watching amateur dramatics.
Truly, the Matrix trilogy (I refuse to discuss the third movie as it is so awful it should be withdrawn from distribution) is a fine example of terrible writing being covered up by music video cinematography. This is everything that is wrong with modern cinema.
I think there was some BS line that they needed to have the subjects neurally connected and active for the process to work, and this would only catch in humans. It has been a while but I think they offered some justification.
Moral of the story… robots are stupid. When we kick off let the ants have the planet.
Because it’s a metaphor.
I think you are crediting the writers with too much skill.
The reason that humans are used as a source of energy and not animals in this film is a metaphor. Nothing to do with skill. All about intent.
And you know the intent because…?
Because of the effect. The message.
Look, so you didn’t like the film, you don’t like the bothers’ style, you don’t like the story, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t any message. If you don’t see a message, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
[b]cba1067950 asks:
Because the storyline isn’t about producing energy, but the question of illusion/reality. It is a modern re-make of the dreaming butterfly question. For all of the dissing of this theme, it succeeded in catching people with this very question. What is real, and how would you know?
[/b]
Please restrict yourself to expressing your opinion AS opinion. Just because one person thinks the Matrix Trilogy is “bad writing” doesn’t mean they are right, or that everyone else ought to think that way. I personally don’t believe there was any “bad writing” because the movie succeeded in what it sought out to do. That is the point of writing. The large scale battles were a brilliant tool to attract a younger audience who didn’t have a hope of understanding the purpose of the trilogy.
Back to the original question,“Why were humans used” as opposed to animals. The purpose is analogous to asking why God chose Earth, or why I take 33 steps to the bathroom instead of 32. It is, more generally, a question of logic.
When there is a 1 in 2 chance of doing something, there is no reason because it is based in chance. It just HAPPENS. Why did the machines choose humans? Where they easier to catch? Was it about revenge? Are they a better power supply?
Irrelevant. Point is, they chose humans. To the audience it is pure chance that NEEDS NO FURTHER EXPLANATION, logically speaking, because THE ODDS COULD HAVE GONE ANY OTHER WAY.
Which is…?
(get to the point)
And if you do see a message, that doesn’t mean it is ‘in the film’ as opposed to ‘in your head’.
What is relevant SIATD is that there is an intent behind why human beings are used and not animals. I’ve already made my point and really have no desire to argue with you back and forth like sport. Ok, the message is in my head. Whatever. Go argue with someone else. I’m done.