# Matrix Resurrections....



## Rev2010 (Dec 24, 2021)

Well, I hated it as did all my friends. This movie simply didn't need to be made. Jumbled nonsense story, long bouts of boring diatribe, too much redone from the original, action/fight scenes done shaky fast pan camera style so you can't tell wth is happening, etc. 

What did y'all think?


----------



## IwantTacos (Dec 24, 2021)

It was bad. But it might have been so bad it was good.

here’s the thing…the wachowskis…might actually not be all that good at directing movies.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Dec 24, 2021)

I thought it was boring and pointless. It was a like a terrible remake of the first with none of the things that made it special. Some of the fight choreography was really bad too, like they either accidentally left a few bad cuts in, or didn’t have enough material and just hoped no one would notice. Just awkward lazy fighting motions overall. 

I thought Neil Patrick Harris was the only developed character in the entire film. At no point did I learn anything about the new characters or get invested into what happens to them.


----------



## thebeesknees22 (Dec 24, 2021)

it was bad bad yeah

bad bad bad.

Clearly a cash grab. They put zero thought into the story and the budget. Didn't give a damn about how it was shot. 

It was just a lazy thrown together mess.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 24, 2021)

DudeManBrother said:


> At no point did I learn anything about the new characters or get invested into what happens to them.



Yep, I don't even know a single one of their names!


----------



## thebeesknees22 (Dec 24, 2021)

Rev2010 said:


> Yep, I don't even know a single one of their names!



edit: *SPOILER*

Blue hair girl
GQ Morpheus (which btw...wtf....)
Trinity wannabe
Fake tank/dozer combo

something something lol... I forget the rest of the new crew


----------



## Adieu (Dec 24, 2021)

IwantTacos said:


> It was bad. But it might have been so bad it was good.
> 
> here’s the thing…the wachowskis…might actually not be all that good at directing movies.



How did you not realize this from the first one?


----------



## IwantTacos (Dec 24, 2021)

Adieu said:


> How did you not realize this from the first one?



eh I just rewatched the first one a little while ago. I think that movie still holds up. They pioneered a lot of stuff that hadn't been done before...and that movie is basically a straight rip of one of my favorite comics of all time. So I thin that movie gets a pass.

It made a boatload of money too...and they rode that goodwill all the way too....ummm Jupiter Ascending? oof.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 24, 2021)

I thought it was really good


----------



## Andii (Dec 24, 2021)

I was thoroughly entertained while I was watching it. My expectations for the story were realllllllll low and it matched what I got. I knew exactly how it was going to be and accepted it going in. 

My coolness with how it was has a lot to do with that fact that I did not get in a car and drive to a theater and pay money to see it. I already had a HBO subscription and didn't leave the house. 

I would not recommend anyone pay money or go to a theater for it.

I think it didn't take itself seriously and was kinda fun, but imagine that same budget and special effects with an original and compelling story. It's bothersome because of how much potential was wasted.

The ridiculous nostalgia and repeated story line gave me real The Force Awakens flashbacks. However I will say that it wasn't actually as bad as that because it at least didn't shit all over the characters and completely change their personalities and characteristics.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 25, 2021)

Andii said:


> I did not get in a car and drive to a theater and pay money to see it. I already had a HBO subscription and didn't leave the house.



Same here, watched it with two friends at my house via HBO Max. Nice quality Sony 4K 55" screen, 5.1 surround sound. Also had very low expectations as I'd seen a number of audience reviews. Still hated it.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Dec 25, 2021)

The Matrix Awakens video game concept looks really high quality at least. The Unreal Engine 5 seems like a big leap forward in realism. I don’t know if they actually plan on developing a full game, but hopefully they could get different writers for the storyline


----------



## Andii (Dec 25, 2021)

Rev2010 said:


> Same here, watched it with two friends at my house via HBO Max. Nice quality Sony 4K 55" screen, 5.1 surround sound. Also had very low expectations as I'd seen a number of audience reviews. Still hated it.


Even though our experiences were different. I completely understand why. The movie was overall very goodn't.


----------



## thebeesknees22 (Dec 25, 2021)

DudeManBrother said:


> The Matrix Awakens video game concept looks really high quality at least. The Unreal Engine 5 seems like a big leap forward in realism. I don’t know if they actually plan on developing a full game, but hopefully they could get different writers for the storyline



unreal 5 is next level. It take full rez film assets and not choke. (full rez film assets are way way heavier than game assets were with unreal 4)

It's not too far into the distant future I think where film will be moving to real time engines. We're just now starting to see a peak of the horizon of it so to speak. Unreal 5 still has a ways to go for being able to handle full rez FX simulations, but environments and lighting are getting pretty sick.


----------



## MFB (Dec 25, 2021)

We're already seeing it being utilized for TV, with the Mandalorian making heavy use of it; I'd be shocked if film wasn't already using it as well


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 25, 2021)

Had you guys recently watched the first 3? I know the original Matrix by heart, but haven’t watched (and don’t remember) the second one in forever. And I never bothered with the 3rd, because I didn’t like the second. I’m wondering if I would have enjoyed this one more had I recently watched all 3.

I didn’t like this at all. It had some cool elements, and I guess I did like the overall idea of the movie, but man, what a disappointment. One of the things that bugged me the most is that it was expected that we knew some of the esoteric information from the first 3 movies, but then they beat us over the head with the obvious stuff, like the white rabbit tattoo, the Jefferson Airplane song, the black cat named Deja Vu. It’s like the movie didn’t know if it’s audience were people vaguely familiar with the trilogy or hardcore fans. 

And it’s always tough to pull off a love story in the middle of a high tension movie. The first one did it well. This one did not.


----------



## Andii (Dec 25, 2021)

Hollowway said:


> Had you guys recently watched the first 3? I know the original Matrix by heart, but haven’t watched (and don’t remember) the second one in forever. And I never bothered with the 3rd, because I didn’t like the second. I’m wondering if I would have enjoyed this one more had I recently watched all 3.


The the 3rd film and its ending always made me feel like they were making it up as they went along. Things escalated until there was no where left to go. 

They did write it out of that corner that seemed completely incoherent and made it work. So you're missing that. 

They could have had the corner written out of the same exact way and then just moved on into an original story that had no other parallels or repeats and I think it could have been much better.

There was a lot shark jumping in this thing so far as the same thing again aspect of it. Two returning characters shouldn't have been there. Bugs' story line would have been sufficient for getting that corner written out of and then the plot could have just gone somewhere new. 

I think something that was interesting about it was when the movie referenced Warner Brothers and said something about "We're going to make a new one with or without you" and all of that. The scene in the corporate board room.

It makes me wonder about what was going on behind the scenes and why one of the Wachowski's were not involved. Is the self awareness in the film a form of protest?

It followed the Star Wars The Force Awakens formula of here's all of your favorite characters, and here is the new version of some characters. Here is a plotline that's a repetition of the past. It stinks of something that was created in board room.

That's one of the things that fascinated me the most about this one. It really followed that same formula, but had a suspicious level of self awareness that looked maybe more than an excuse.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 25, 2021)

Andii said:


> The the 3rd film and its ending always made me feel like they were making it up as they went along. Things escalated until there was no where left to go.
> 
> They did write it out of that corner that seemed completely incoherent and made it work. So you're missing that.
> 
> ...


Yeah, in fact the Deus Machina name they used in this movie felt to me like a Deus Ex Machina thing about how they were just phoning it in on plot. I'm not entirely sure if that was not the intention, or if it partly was, because of the obvious Warner Bros stuff you pointed out. 

I WILL say that Keanu Reeves and Carrie Anne Moss look shockingly good for late and early 50s. I look wose than that, and I'm younger than both of them, lol.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 25, 2021)

Hollowway said:


> Had you guys recently watched the first 3? I know the original Matrix by heart, but haven’t watched (and don’t remember) the second one in forever. And I never bothered with the 3rd, because I didn’t like the second. I’m wondering if I would have enjoyed this one more had I recently watched all 3.



I've been a tremendous Matrix fan since the first movie, so yes I saw all three. I'm against the audience grain here as I originally disliked the 2nd movie for numerous reasons yet I really liked the 3rd film. I can't get why so sooo many people despise it. But yeah I've seen them all fairly recently as I've had the blu-ray box set then got the 4K Blu-rays when they came out. 

And yes they do look good for their age, but remember they are rich and can go further than most to take good care of themselves.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 25, 2021)

Rev2010 said:


> I've been a tremendous Matrix fan since the first movie, so yes I saw all three. I'm against the audience grain here as I originally disliked the 2nd movie for numerous reasons yet I really liked the 3rd film. I can't get why so sooo many people despise it. But yeah I've seen them all fairly recently as I've had the blu-ray box set then got the 4K Blu-rays when they came out.
> 
> And yes they do look good for their age, but remember they are rich and can go further than most to take good care of themselves.


OK, well then I'm going to check out the 3rd movie. I wasn't super impressed with the 2nd. But I didn't hate it, per se. So maybe I'll like the 3rd.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Dec 25, 2021)

I wonder if the most interesting aspect of this movie was even intentional. They had Thomas make a successful trilogy of Matrix games and the studio was hell bent on him making a 4th, which he did not want to do. I wonder how much of that was based on real conversations, and if they half assed the movie in hopes of not reviving the franchise any further.


----------



## littlebadboy (Dec 26, 2021)

Not about the movie coz I haven't seen it yet... anybody seen Animatrix? The trilogy made sense to me when I watched it. Any thoughts about it?


----------



## SpaceDock (Dec 26, 2021)

I thought it was decent enough. Lots of jokes about it being a remake. Maybe I have low standards


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin (Dec 26, 2021)

littlebadboy said:


> Not about the movie coz I haven't seen it yet... anybody seen Animatrix? The trilogy made sense to me when I watched it. Any thoughts about it?


I like Animatrix, though it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. And the new movie isn’t groundbreaking, but it wasn’t as bad as everyone is making it out to be.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 26, 2021)

I liked and care about all the characters, the acting was really good, the way the world has progressed is satisfying, the story mostly makes sense, action was good, meta narrative made sense, and the social commentary feels right.

Well, the social commentary would feel right but since after 20+ years people still don't understand what the Matrix was about they had to spell things out much more clearly.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 26, 2021)

littlebadboy said:


> Not about the movie coz I haven't seen it yet... anybody seen Animatrix? The trilogy made sense to me when I watched it. Any thoughts about it?



Animatrix was amazing!!! I highly recommend it.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 26, 2021)

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> but it wasn’t as bad as everyone is making it out to be.



"Mediocrity should not be celebrated!" - Corey Taylor (Slipknot - All out life)


----------



## TheBlackBard (Dec 26, 2021)

StevenC said:


> I liked and care about all the characters, the acting was really good, the way the world has progressed is satisfying, the story mostly makes sense, action was good, meta narrative made sense, and the social commentary feels right.
> 
> Well, the social commentary would feel right but since after 20+ years people still don't understand what the Matrix was about they had to spell things out much more clearly.




Probably the same people who thought that the new Candyman was too "woke." I mean, remember what the OG was actually about (not counting the story it was based on).


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 26, 2021)

StevenC said:


> I liked and care about all the characters, the acting was really good, the way the world has progressed is satisfying, the story mostly makes sense, action was good, meta narrative made sense, and the social commentary feels right.
> 
> Well, the social commentary would feel right but since after 20+ years people still don't understand what the Matrix was about they had to spell things out much more clearly.


The one thing I was surprised (and disappointed) was how little bullet time stuff was in there. Just that one scene. I would love more of the multi camera surround sort of fight scenes from the original. As a consequence, the fight scenes looked like a regular movie here, which disappointed me.


----------



## CanserDYI (Dec 26, 2021)

littlebadboy said:


> Not about the movie coz I haven't seen it yet... anybody seen Animatrix? The trilogy made sense to me when I watched it. Any thoughts about it?


I always thought Animatrix was the Animaniacs parody of the matrix? Is it not that?


----------



## Randy (Dec 26, 2021)

Haven't watched it yet, not sure if I will but IMO the only two things in the Matrix Universe are the original movie and the Animatrix. Everything else felt like compromises to satisfy one group or the other but the bulk of the art in the storytelling were gone.

I've seen a few interviews with Lana and this movie seemed doomed from the beginning. Didn't sound like the story needed to be told or this was a new wrinkle that people needed to see. Felt like Lana went through a lot since the last movie and decided that the new movie needed to be made to paint the original story in her new view, which feels cheap. Just make a new different movie then.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Dec 27, 2021)

Andii said:


> I think something that was interesting about it was when the movie referenced Warner Brothers and said something about "We're going to make a new one with or without you" and all of that. The scene in the corporate board room.





Hollowway said:


> Yeah, in fact the Deus Machina name they used in this movie felt to me like a Deus Ex Machina thing about how they were just phoning it in on plot.



This was the only really redeeming point of the movie for me. The first half was a total mindfuck and I thought it was going to keep going down that rabbithole, but when it led to this, well that also made sense.

Also, they did GQ Morpheus zero favors putting footage of old Morpheus up. Lawrence Fishburn is a tough act to follow.

I tried to rewatch Matrix Reloaded recently, got about 15 minutes in and turned it off. The whole movie was just so......


----------



## thebeesknees22 (Dec 27, 2021)

wheresthefbomb said:


> This was the only really redeeming point of the movie for me. The first half was a total mindfuck and I thought it was going to keep going down that rabbithole, but when it led to this, well that also made sense.
> 
> Also, they did GQ Morpheus zero favors putting footage of old Morpheus up. Lawrence Fishburn is a tough act to follow.
> 
> I tried to rewatch Matrix Reloaded recently, got about 15 minutes in and turned it off. The whole movie was just so......




Fishburn cannot be outdone. That dude is in a league of his own. 

I suppose doing GQ Morpheus was their way of not even trying to compete with the original. But.... GQ morpheus was a tad ridiculous lol


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Dec 27, 2021)

thebeesknees22 said:


> Fishburn cannot be outdone. That dude is in a league of his own.
> 
> I suppose doing GQ Morpheus was their way of not even trying to compete with the original. But.... GQ morpheus was a tad ridiculous lol



I really tried to do the dude a solid and take him seriously. The saddest part is his outfits were legitimately awesome, they were just so out of place and completely overshadowed by an entire trilogy's worth of expectations.


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Dec 27, 2021)

One of the worst movies I have seen in recent memory. My jaw was agape the entire time in sheer awe that something so horrendously put together could get past that many levels of production without someone stepping in and saying: "What the fuck are you doing?". Pissing all over the previous entries in the franchise with reckless abandon without any sense of tonal consistency or cohesion. Narrative was a self-aware mess and the whole thing felt like a hollowed-out corpse of the Matrix being pranced around, even more so than Reloaded/Revolutions.

2/10 is a generous rating in my books. Utterly bewildering how something so genuinely awful could get made. Don't get me wrong - I was smiling half the time out of aforementioned bewilderment. I enjoyed watching the train wreck but I'm still wildly confused how they let any of those myriad of god-awful decisions get into the final cut.



IwantTacos said:


> here’s the thing…the wachowskis…might actually not be all that good at directing movies.



Utterly and completely.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 27, 2021)

Just saw it. I don't hate it, not the worst thing I've ever seen, but I'm pretty disappointed, which says a lot coming from me given that I liked all the modern Star Wars movies. I appreciated the two main characters coming back, and I don't even hate the new Morpheus, but most of the rest of the new cast were just generic hipster skinny chicks with no character, let alone character development. The biggest disappointment for me was just having no real stakes. The old movies had a sense of scale, a sense of something being fought for and almost lost, etc. - as much as we make fun of them now for the cave orgy scenes and junk, they set up a humanity that was real and alive and the audience got to see what was being fought for. And with no stakes and no character development, none of the callbacks felt earned. Like they took some shots right out of the original movies that were cool shots when done in the original, but they felt out of place in the new one - like the bullets falling from the helicopter. Those shots were done for a reason in the original movie - to me, the original movies felt very focused and deliberate - someone cared about framing and reflections and details - so to take such a pointed and meaningful camera angle and jam it thoughtlessly into a lazy reboot makes it kinda sting.

I had forgotten Neil Patrick Harris was in this.... he kinda makes the whole movie feel like a joke. New Smith was incredibly under-utilized, there just to be there, and also felt un-earned. He was just smug, without selling any of the anger I feel like that character should have.

I thought there were some good ideas but in the end.... not enough to make me feel like anyone making this movie cared.



Hollowway said:


> fact the Deus Machina name they used in this movie felt to me like a Deus Ex Machina thing about how they were just phoning it in on plot


The name was supposed to be a reference to the machine Neo negotiates with at the end of 3.



StevenC said:


> but since after 20+ years people still don't understand what the Matrix was about


You can't really decide what your audience takes from something. IMO there's a huge amount of room for debate over what a movie like that "is about". Some of its themes were subtle, but at the same time.... not really. I think maybe that's a big strength of older films in that they knew how to not conflate themes and plot. Modern movies feel very on-the-nose to me.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 27, 2021)

TedEH said:


> You can't really decide what your audience takes from something. IMO there's a huge amount of room for debate over what a movie like that "is about". Some of its themes were subtle, but at the same time.... not really. I think maybe that's a big strength of older films in that they knew how to not conflate themes and plot. Modern movies feel very on-the-nose to me.


And Animal Farm is just about pink mammals that say oink.

If the audience misses the metaphor so bad that you're plot device becomes an unironic slogan against the values of the movie, then it's either a really bad movie or some purple need to be bludgeoned with the message. Show of hands for The Matrix being a really bad movie?

Being ignorant to subtext doesn't remove the subtext. Getting frustrated with 20 years of ignorance earns some leeway on subtlety.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 27, 2021)

TedEH said:


> You can't really decide what your audience takes from something. IMO there's a huge amount of room for debate over what a movie like that "is about". Some of its themes were subtle, but at the same time.... not really. I think maybe that's a big strength of older films in that they knew how to not conflate themes and plot. Modern movies feel very on-the-nose to me.



it's funny that you say this, when the movie literally stated, verbatim, "Warner Brothers has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They are going to do it with or without us. They'll kill our contract if they don't cooperate." People are in here "gee whizz was that for real!?" Takes two seconds to Google it and see that, yes, it was... with the guy who wrote X-Men: The Last Stand and Ready Player One, so it would have been horrible.

Then they have a focus group say the first things people think of when they hear the Matrix is "originality" and "fresh." Then they have Neo, clearly a stand-in for the Wachowskis (one or both, doesn't matter) completely lose their shit and try and kill himself because they hate the idea of a sequel so much. They have a gross, sexist dude bro who completely missed the point of the first trilogy say it was all about bullet time - he's clearly a stand-in for the audience members who didn't notice the OG trilogy were really about philosophy and allegory and the gun fights and kung fu were just window dressing. They do everything to make fun of reboot culture, say they were done with the movies, and point out doing a sequel is stupid. They make it extremely clear they aren't going to do a straight reboot/sequel/whatever... and people still didn't get it. It certainly was "very on-the-nose," but clearly still not obvious enough.

The old Matrix trilogy thought people were smart. The new one knows people are stupid and was written with that in mind... and people still didn't get it. All you need to do is read this thread. It's honestly fucking hilarious (and very sad, but oh well). The movie calls its shot in the first 20 minutes or so, basically nails it, and people are absolutely furious about it but that says a lot more about them than the movie.

This movie is Last Action Hero mixed with Sense8 and the old Matrix movies, jammed into a blender. I can't believe they managed to make this movie. It's amazing. It's definitely not perfect. 8 out of 10 at the absolute best. But it's the most interesting big franchise movie I've seen in ... forever, honestly. All these horribly offended, super butthurt reactions are a nice dessert.




> The name was supposed to be a reference to the machine Neo negotiates with at the end of 3.


That machine was actually named for a plot device as old as Western civilization itself... deus ex machina is a reference to ancient Greek theater. Odds are pretty good that it references Neo and Trinity being saved from actual death by the machines but whatever


----------



## IwantTacos (Dec 27, 2021)

sakeido said:


> it's funny that you say this, when the movie literally stated, verbatim, "Warner Brothers has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They are going to do it with or without us. They'll kill our contract if they don't cooperate." People are in here "gee whizz was that for real!?" Takes two seconds to Google it and see that, yes, it was... with the guy who wrote X-Men: The Last Stand and Ready Player One, so it would have been horrible.
> 
> Then they have a focus group say the first things people think of when they hear the Matrix is "originality" and "fresh." Then they have Neo, clearly a stand-in for the Wachowskis (one or both, doesn't matter) completely lose their shit and try and kill himself because they hate the idea of a sequel so much. They have a gross, sexist dude bro who completely missed the point of the first trilogy say it was all about bullet time - he's clearly a stand-in for the audience members who didn't notice the OG trilogy were really about philosophy and allegory and the gun fights and kung fu were just window dressing. They do everything to make fun of reboot culture, say they were done with the movies, and point out doing a sequel is stupid. They make it extremely clear they aren't going to do a straight reboot/sequel/whatever... and people still didn't get it. It certainly was "very on-the-nose," but clearly still not obvious enough.
> 
> ...



yUo JuSt DiDnT gEt TeH mOvIe. 

no I got it dude. It couldn’t have been clear. It jus wasn’t very good.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 27, 2021)

I saw the movies - you don't have to explain it to me. 

I stand by my , you can't control what anyone will take from a movie. That doesn't make the movie bad or good - it just is what it is. "People" aren't a homogeneous group with a singular take on a movie, and the idea of dismissing a movie as "bad" on the basis of the fact that some audience members didn't "get" the writers or directors intentions doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, there's lots of people out there who aren't very bright, but that's not the film's fault. I mean, how many people don't "get" metal, or don't "get" rap - is all music just garbage then? Lets not set our standards at "even a Trump could understand it". 

At the same time, if you didn't like the original movie(s), why bother watching and criticizing the new one?



sakeido said:


> That machine was actually named for a plot device as old as Western civilization itself...


I realize that, but I'm assuming they were going for the callback, since about half of the new film was just Callbacks: The Movie.


----------



## Randy (Dec 28, 2021)

sakeido said:


> it's funny that you say this, when the movie literally stated, verbatim, "Warner Brothers has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They are going to do it with or without us. They'll kill our contract if they don't cooperate." People are in here "gee whizz was that for real!?" Takes two seconds to Google it and see that, yes, it was... with the guy who wrote X-Men: The Last Stand and Ready Player One, so it would have been horrible.
> 
> Then they have a focus group say the first things people think of when they hear the Matrix is "originality" and "fresh." Then they have Neo, clearly a stand-in for the Wachowskis (one or both, doesn't matter) completely lose their shit and try and kill himself because they hate the idea of a sequel so much. They have a gross, sexist dude bro who completely missed the point of the first trilogy say it was all about bullet time - he's clearly a stand-in for the audience members who didn't notice the OG trilogy were really about philosophy and allegory and the gun fights and kung fu were just window dressing. They do everything to make fun of reboot culture, say they were done with the movies, and point out doing a sequel is stupid. They make it extremely clear they aren't going to do a straight reboot/sequel/whatever... and people still didn't get it. It certainly was "very on-the-nose," but clearly still not obvious enough.
> 
> ...



So it's a parody? The thing you're ultra impressed by is the fact they parodied their own movie 20 years later?


----------



## StevenC (Dec 28, 2021)

Randy said:


> So it's a parody? The thing you're ultra impressed by is the fact they parodied their own movie 20 years later?


To an extent, yes. The movie has a lot to say in my opinion, but one of the questions it asks is why are you watching this movie and why have people been asking for it for 20 years?

To be honest I don't understand what anyone was expecting from this movie or how it could have been better.


----------



## Randy (Dec 28, 2021)

It's just a weird concept. Bait people in that were fans of your movie so you can tell them they're stupid for that and send them on their way.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 28, 2021)

Randy said:


> It's just a weird concept. Bait people in that were fans of your movie so you can tell them they're stupid for that and send them on their way.


I don't think wanting the audience to ask questions of themselves is bait, but I do think calling that bait is a good argument for Resurrections being right about something.


----------



## Aewrik (Dec 28, 2021)

Great post!



sakeido said:


> The old Matrix trilogy thought people were smart.



One thing about this line though: the original plot was dumbed down for the masses, from what I heard. The original idea was not that we're somehow efficient batteries, but that we were used as co-processors for the machines. The urgency to break out of the matrix was supposed to be that our brains were adapted to and dehumanized by the matrix/our role as processors, just like how extended exposure to anything affects our thinking and behavior. Cipher's reason for wanting to return to the matrix was not the dystopia outside, but a consequence of being adapted to the matrix, like a kind of mechanical dopamine craving (or literal, but I suppose breaking out of the matrix would be difficult if drowned in hormones...).


----------



## IwantTacos (Dec 28, 2021)

Aewrik said:


> Great post!
> 
> 
> 
> One thing about this line though: the original plot was dumbed down for the masses, from what I heard. The original idea was not that we're somehow efficient batteries, but that we were used as co-processors for the machines. The urgency to break out of the matrix was supposed to be that our brains were adapted to and dehumanized by the matrix/our role as processors, just like how extended exposure to anything affects our thinking and behavior. Cipher's reason for wanting to return to the matrix was not the dystopia outside, but a consequence of being adapted to the matrix, like a kind of mechanical dopamine craving (or literal, but I suppose breaking out of the matrix would be difficult if drowned in hormones...).



More like the original plot was beat for beat a copy of every concept in the invisibles. But they couldn’t figure out their own take on it that made sense so they dumbed it down instead.


----------



## Randy (Dec 28, 2021)

StevenC said:


> I don't think wanting the audience to ask questions of themselves is bait, but I do think calling that bait is a good argument for Resurrections being right about something.



Meh, I still think it's overly judgemental of the audience. It's not like if you watch the Matrix you're a stone dumb moron. It's possible to watch and enjoy legitimately deep or cerebral movies for what they are and go into the Matrix or one of its sequels thinking it's something else. 

I guess my point is that I found the original Matrix to be kind of overambitious for whatever themes they were going for juxtaposed with the horrible acting and the so-so directing. That's even before this whole reimagining we're doing 20 years later. The saving grace of the Matrix was the aesthetic and the fact that the first time you watch(ed) it, each turn is a surprise or a new layer as the environment grows. A Cabin in the Woods, sort of.

To come back afterward and say this movie is too smart for you or the theme was singular and you were too stupid to get it because it was buried under a layer of bullet time awe is yeah, cheap. Maybe people missed the subtext or didn't but the acting was so poor and the extraneous goings on were so gaudy that they gave up caring and just appreciated the movie for what they were seeing on the screen.

Maybe I'm alone in this but when I go into a movie, I kinda size it up at some point and decide when I'm putting my brain on cruise control. I can't imagine keeping my brain turned on for 2 hours of Keanu Reeves doing anything.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 28, 2021)

sakeido said:


> it's funny that you say this, when the movie literally stated, verbatim, "Warner Brothers has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They are going to do it with or without us. They'll kill our contract if they don't cooperate." People are in here "gee whizz was that for real!?" Takes two seconds to Google it and see that, yes, it was... with the guy who wrote X-Men: The Last Stand and Ready Player One, so it would have been horrible.



Funny, and you think you have it all figured out and the rest of us that didn't like it just don't get the movie. It was not a parody of itself, nor something made solely to get revenge on Warner Brothers or simply make some sort of statement.

Lana said herself while going through the grief of losing her parents and her wife's close friend, "I didn’t really know how to process that kind of grief. I hadn’t experienced it … I knew my dad was getting sick and you know that their lives are going to end and yet, it was still really hard. My brain has always reached into my imagination and one night, I was just crying and couldn’t sleep. Suddenly, my brain exploded this whole story and I couldn’t have my mom and dad. I couldn’t talk to my mom and yet, suddenly, I had Neo and Trinity — arguably the two most important characters in my life — and it was immediately comforting to have these two characters alive again."

Yeah, that sure sounds like the work of someone making a joke out of their latest project.  She wanted to make it very meta and also about mental health. I think mirroring her real life situations into parts of the movie, such as that office scene where "We're going to make it with or without you" was just a way to incorporate that.



sakeido said:


> and people still didn't get it. All you need to do is read this thread. It's honestly fucking hilarious (and very sad, but oh well)





sakeido said:


> All these horribly offended, super butthurt reactions are a nice dessert.



Then you go on to insult people for simply discussing a movie in a thread? I don't recall seeing anyone super butthurt here, not like people are calling for a boycott


----------



## DudeManBrother (Dec 28, 2021)

I wasn’t offended or butthurt by the movie whatsoever. I don’t know anything about the directors, their storyline motivations, or what they hoped to convey originally with the -red pill/blue pill- concept. I never even finished the sequels. I just think the movie flat out sucked. Why does Neo need to keep doing that stupid thing with his hands everytime agents are shooting at him? Nobody else had that ability, and yet not a single bullet ever came even close to hitting anyone. Just keep running and you’ll be perfectly fine. It was like an old cartoon episode of GI Joe.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 28, 2021)

DudeManBrother said:


> and yet not a single bullet ever came even close to hitting anyone.



My friend who watched it with me responded to a friends comment on FB - she said "Oh and in case you want to know A.I. 'beings' can't hit any target when shooting at it"


----------



## narad (Dec 28, 2021)

It sucked. Not as bad as II or III, but just in this kind of unnecessary and unremarkable way. It wasn't clever in a "Primer" way, it was clever in like a Hollywood "Scream III" kinda way, which is to say, not very. Matrix + Animatrix, and I just try to forget the rest ever happened.


----------



## nightflameauto (Dec 28, 2021)

IwantTacos said:


> eh I just rewatched the first one a little while ago. I think that movie still holds up. They pioneered a lot of stuff that hadn't been done before...and that movie is basically a straight rip of one of my favorite comics of all time. So I thin that movie gets a pass.
> 
> It made a boatload of money too...and they rode that goodwill all the way too....ummm Jupiter Ascending? oof.


Hey! Jupiter Ascending is the absolute best movie in the world to watch when you're stoned out of your mind and feeling like watching someone else's fever dreams.


littlebadboy said:


> Not about the movie coz I haven't seen it yet... anybody seen Animatrix? The trilogy made sense to me when I watched it. Any thoughts about it?


I love the Animatrix.


Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I like Animatrix, though it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. And the new movie isn’t groundbreaking, but it wasn’t as bad as everyone is making it out to be.


Actually, it's every bit as bad as people are making it out to be.

And I hate that I have to say that. I'm a dude that LOVES meta and forth walling to an almost brutal degree, and within a half hour I'm like, "just make a plot and stop doing this fourth wall funny, funny poking shit."

I tried twice and fell asleep both times. It's just not engaging on any level whatsoever. By the time I made it through the scene where they meet in the coffee shop my brain was scrambling to find something else to think about and I basically passed out. It kinda makes me sad this movie got made when it fairly well spells out exactly why they didn't want to make it in the first place.

Maybe years down the road people will be able to hold it up as a turning point in self-referential bullshit, but right now it just sorta feels like somebody tossed a turd in the punch bowl.


----------



## profwoot (Dec 28, 2021)

I was very enthusiastic about the first Matrix, and spent many hours discussing its philosophical implications and in-universe plot possibilities. I even stayed mostly on board after the second film, thinking it might actually be brilliant if it was setting up the third film. After that shitshow I began to realize the power of crowdsourcing, as what emerges from a large number of enthusiasts can be far more compelling than what any individual or small team will likely come up with.

The 4th one seems like a triviality. Not vacuous like the 3rd, but still without much of import to say beyond an F U to the studio and a dig at the mindlessness of the populace. Since it's also entirely lacking in style, the mediocre philosophy is all there is to fall back on. I don't lament its creation, but I also don't imagine I'll long remember it exists.


----------



## thebeesknees22 (Dec 28, 2021)

I'm in the corner of loving the first one. It was imho revolutionary for it's time. It changed everything in film, and paved the way for LOTR and pretty much every big vfx film after.

2 and 3 were ok, minus the dumb cave rave scene. They could have definitely been better, but they were still watchable.

4 though is just borderline unwatchable. It took me 2 nights to get through it and that was a struggle.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 28, 2021)

Today I learned that one of the most influential sci-fi films made is actually just objectively "bad" because y'all said so.  Never change sso.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 28, 2021)

Randy said:


> the so-so directing. That's even before this whole reimagining we're doing 20 years later. The saving grace of the Matrix was the aesthetic and the fact that the first time you watch(ed) it, each turn is a surprise or a new layer as the environment grows. A Cabin in the Woods, sort of.



Do takes get any spicier and wrong than saying the first Matrix had "so-so directing?" I'm not sure. It's only one of the most influential action movies of all time... there's an argument to be made it's the single most influential action movie of all time. It's very rare that a movie that's a feast for the senses has anything to say, much less themes worth discussing for 20+ years. We're talking about a movie so good, so far ahead of its time, it got the Wachowskis a free pass to spend a quarter billion dollars of studio money to make extremely weird movies every few years, apparently for the rest of their lives. I guess that all happened completely by accident?



nightflameauto said:


> Maybe years down the road people will be able to hold it up as a turning point in self-referential bullshit, but right now it just sorta feels like somebody tossed a turd in the punch bowl.


if people can change their tune about Last Action Hero, which was a poorly reviewed bomb on release, it can happen for this one too


----------



## Randy (Dec 28, 2021)

sakeido said:


> I guess that all happened completely by accident?


 
"So-so" is spicy to you?

The scenery was kind of a less jarring Dark City/The Crow-type (so, borrowed), as I said the acting was _VERY_ bad, the dialogue as it was written is not great and a lot of the scenes themselves were awkward. The premise was fantastic, the costume design, fight choreography and special effects were legendary and rightly so.

That's how you get to "so-so" directing.

Keep in mind, that's aside from the fact I entered this discussion saying the original movie was good and I mentioned the Animatrix because I thought it built on the same world but delivered it a little better because it wasn't dragged down by the same shortcomings of the live-action movie. The two combined were very good, I thought what they decided to so with it after that was a shame.

"Most influential" eh, idk. The aesthetic and the gunplay choreography thing definitely, although it was kind of a trend for a few years (Equilibrium?) that died out. The thing it had going for it the most was the fact it was a 2 hour VFX demo reel with a lot of revolutionary effects (bullet time, the helicopter scene, the bank lobby, the weapon "vault"). No arguments there.

I'm just missing this idea that it needs to be reimagined as not just a very unique movie that did a lot of 'never before scene' things visually, but it also needs to be Citizen fuckin' Kane too and because we unwashed neanderthals didn't realize it was this masterpiece for the last 20 years, we need to be condescended for thinking we were getting a fun new pew pew pew movie.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Dec 28, 2021)

I think a lot of the city sets were literally ‘second hand’ from Dark City!!!

The budgets weren’t there to start afresh, so they had to make do...


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 3, 2022)

I wouldn't call it terrible, but it wasn't all that good either. Took me 2 sit downs to get through it. I loved the first 3 films, minus some of the 3rd. 

They should have just left it as a trilogy. But everything has to be redone/remade/reimagined(usually resulting in horrid failure) these days because Hollywood is severely lacking in the creative department.


----------



## Edika (Jan 4, 2022)

I saw it on Sunday, probably should have read some reviews first lol. The misses was not thrilled and I'm on the so and so and probably didn't need a 4th movie camp.

From the original Matrix movies, I liked the first one. The second was just action, action, action, explosions with no story at all and the third one, while better, it seemed like they were just making stuff up. A lot of plot holes, which might seem intentional to give deep meaning and let the viewer think of the outcome, but it was obvious they had no idea where they were going with this.

The reasons I liked this chapter was the first half of the movie. Honestly if they stuck to that story line, that everything was his overactive imagination and a psychotic breakdown then it would have been so much more interesting. Then the action scenes were uninspiring and awful. One thing they tried to do really haphazardly is develop Trinity a bit more. Give her a bit more of an equal footing, vs being the love inspiration behind the net Messiah. But they did not really develop her character that much as it was focused on Mr. Anderson. Anyway a bit of a wasted potential and unfortunately left openings for more movies. I hope they don't but market, money and all that.


----------



## Edika (Jan 4, 2022)

sakeido said:


> it's funny that you say this, when the movie literally stated, verbatim, "Warner Brothers has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They are going to do it with or without us. They'll kill our contract if they don't cooperate." People are in here "gee whizz was that for real!?" Takes two seconds to Google it and see that, yes, it was... with the guy who wrote X-Men: The Last Stand and Ready Player One, so it would have been horrible.
> 
> Then they have a focus group say the first things people think of when they hear the Matrix is "originality" and "fresh." Then they have Neo, clearly a stand-in for the Wachowskis (one or both, doesn't matter) completely lose their shit and try and kill himself because they hate the idea of a sequel so much. They have a gross, sexist dude bro who completely missed the point of the first trilogy say it was all about bullet time - he's clearly a stand-in for the audience members who didn't notice the OG trilogy were really about philosophy and allegory and the gun fights and kung fu were just window dressing. They do everything to make fun of reboot culture, say they were done with the movies, and point out doing a sequel is stupid. They make it extremely clear they aren't going to do a straight reboot/sequel/whatever... and people still didn't get it. It certainly was "very on-the-nose," but clearly still not obvious enough.
> 
> ...



That is why the first part of the movie was interesting. Honestly if there was no Matrix and futuristic crap it would have been a more interesting movie. But the thing with the first three movies was that either the philosophy points they were trying to make were thrown at you heavy handedly or they were so disjointed and "covert" you could not make heads or tails of what the message was.

I saw a YouTube video that made an analysis of the movie as an allegory of the Wachowski brothers transition and that made a lot more sense of the movies other than whatever else most have said about them.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 4, 2022)

The more I think about it, I think a part of my disappointment with the new film was how it didn't resolve or address or expand on any of the questions that were left hanging from the trilogy. IMO there was a lot to explore in terms of why Neo might have had "powers" _outside_ of the Matrix - even if they had taken the easy/inception route that it turns out there's two or more layers of Matrix and that they've never truly escaped in the first place. Maybe they could have done a "ransomware" plot - where programs from inside the Matrix, realizing that it's possible now to upload themselves to brains connected to the system, start holding peoples bodies in the real world for ransom or something.


----------



## WarMachine (Jan 11, 2022)

TedEH said:


> IMO there was a lot to explore in terms of why Neo might have had "powers" _outside_ of the Matrix


This.
Writers; "Nah. Why would we do that? Let's ruin a series and make Trinity "the one " to keep the woke culture happy"


----------



## profwoot (Jan 11, 2022)

WarMachine said:


> This.
> Writers; "Nah. Why would we do that? Let's ruin a series and make Trinity "the one " to keep the woke culture happy"



wtf is this shit? Trinity wasn't made "the one". Do you troglodytes ever even listen to yourselves?


----------



## WarMachine (Jan 11, 2022)

profwoot said:


> wtf is this shit? Trinity wasn't made "the one". Do you troglodytes ever even listen to yourselves?


Im sorry great one, enlighten a "troglodyte" such as myself where i misunderstood where it looked like trinity was doing things Neo _*used*_ to be able to do, but can't seem to in this one


----------



## profwoot (Jan 11, 2022)

It was explained earlier in this thread. What does need explaining is why you think a woman having superpowers instead of a man could only be due to "woke culture". Do you really assume that no one could actually consider men and women as equals, so anyone that appears to do so must be virtue signaling to the "woke culture"? Which man in the story should have gained power instead?


----------



## WarMachine (Jan 11, 2022)

profwoot said:


> It was explained earlier in this thread. What does need explaining is why you think a woman having superpowers instead of a man could only be due to "woke culture". Do you really assume that no one could actually consider men and women as equals, so anyone that appears to do so must be virtue signaling to the "woke culture"? Which man in the story should have gained power instead?


It's not about a man or woman getting power, it's about changing the makeup of how the man or woman gets that power. If the series started out with trinity having that power then that would be fine. But to get it at the end when its about to hit the fan and not neo killed it for me. Seems to me like everything these days falls into the "woke culture" for fear of backlash online and in the media, "why does it have to be a man?". Um, because in this series it has been, so that's what people were expecting.
And don't get me wrong, it's not just that, that was the last nail in the coffin for this for me. The bigger problem i had with it is that, up to this point, the movies were based off of everyone knowing or eventually finding out that Neo is the one. Including himself. Not until he got the idea that he was able to do virtually anything. So for him to forget, by the programs that were made to make him forget, i'm fine with. Makes sense. If he doesn't remember he can do anything than he can do nothing. But once he started to get the moves back, you'd think it would've made more sense for him to be able to do everything he did before or even more, but they took a dump on that as well. Glad someone liked it.


----------



## IwantTacos (Jan 11, 2022)

trinity having powers inside the matrix isn't well explained at all.


----------



## profwoot (Jan 11, 2022)

WarMachine said:


> It's not about a man or woman getting power, it's about changing the makeup of how the man or woman gets that power. If the series started out with trinity having that power then that would be fine. But to get it at the end when its about to hit the fan and not neo killed it for me. Seems to me like everything these days falls into the "woke culture" for fear of backlash online and in the media, "why does it have to be a man?". Um, because in this series it has been, so that's what people were expecting.
> And don't get me wrong, it's not just that, that was the last nail in the coffin for this for me. The bigger problem i had with it is that, up to this point, the movies were based off of everyone knowing or eventually finding out that Neo is the one. Including himself. Not until he got the idea that he was able to do virtually anything. So for him to forget, by the programs that were made to make him forget, i'm fine with. Makes sense. If he doesn't remember he can do anything than he can do nothing. But once he started to get the moves back, you'd think it would've made more sense for him to be able to do everything he did before or even more, but they took a dump on that as well. Glad someone liked it.



The movie is a mess; I'm only trying to get you to think about why you attribute at least one aspect of that mess to "woke culture". Is it unfathomable to you that the trans woman who wrote and directed the film couldn't possibly care about diversity and inclusion? It simply must be due to fear of backlash from... other people who care about diversity and inclusion? Is she, and everyone else, just "virtue signaling" because it's not possible for anyone to actually give a shit about other humans? Your reasoning on this, as is always true among those who use terms like "woke culture", seems non-existent.

Personally, I dig the idea of there not actually being a "one", because every goddamn scifi/fantasy has a "one" and it's boring and unrelatable. I will again grant that this movie had lots of problems, but given wanting to demonstrate that other people besides neo can also gain power, trinity is absolutely the safest and most obvious answer, no awareness of other humans' struggles -- oh sorry, "wokeness" -- required.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 11, 2022)

I actually found the whole Trinity-has-powers-now to be quite the opposite of woke. If anything, it was an obvious and predictable conclusion to the very traditional "main characters save the world with their love" narrative, without really saying anything, or doing any exploration of that relationship. For bonus points, they're strait white powerful people. That's about as status-quo as it gets.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 11, 2022)

I think you are giving the movie too much credit either way. None of the movies were as clever as they general get credit for being, and arguably, the first one was the only one that even had anything actually profound to say, and even that was all borrowed from other movies and from books. This latest one was an obvious cash grab by the studio that is getting some critics to give it props for being self aware that it's a cash grab from the studio.


----------



## WarMachine (Jan 11, 2022)

profwoot said:


> Is it unfathomable to you that the trans woman who wrote and directed the film couldn't possibly care about diversity and inclusion? It simply must be due to fear of backlash from...
> 
> Your reasoning on this, as is always true among those who use terms like "woke culture", seems non-existent.
> 
> -- oh sorry, "wokeness" -- required.


Well Mr.Van Driessen, you've just proven my point. At what point did i say anything of sexual preference/gender identity/whatever had to do with the writer? IDGAF what manner of person writes any film/show as long as it's good. And you say "my reasoning seems non-existent"? I expected no less. My "reasoning" was made very plain and simple in the last post, as how, someone from _*your*_ standpoint, "it is always true among those who like to defend "wokeness". Again, i could give a shit less if it was a woman, another man, an android, a wizard (i hope my _oh so simple minded references don't offend you_) whatever. I was just hoping Neo would get that power back. Damn i must be a chauvinist, misogynist relic.


----------



## Randy (Jan 11, 2022)

Woke-ism (if you wanna call it that) is a real thing in films.

I'll preface that by saying I'm one of those people that hates reboots and sequels several decades after the fact. In my brain, I like a good movie (or trilogy) to be a finite story from beginning to end in a box and once it's finished, it's finished.

Rebooting feels cheap because, other than the fact it almost never (?) is on par with the original, it also takes something that was understood in that universe for some period of time and then flips it upside down just to have an excuse to exist. Same concept applies to sequels; something like Highlander 1 vs Highlander 2 comes to mind (zeist!).

So yeah, I'm predisposed to NOT liking reboots or late sequels and like, 10x worse if it's a BAD movie that pokes holes in the GOOD movies that precede it.

I won't sharpen "woke-ism" to specifically be about gender or sexual orientation or whatever, but I choose to define it as corralling art to reflect the politics/culture of the day. Whatever that may be. Sometimes a profound statement that reflects current affair stands on its own (The Crying Game, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner), sometimes it's sloppily attached to another piece of art as a crutch. Maybe it's my own definition but "woke-ism" to me is the idea that making a singular statement about that time in history is more important than creating art that's timeless (which is capable of being both).

Woke reboot/reimagining feels like taking good movies, good stories and making half hearted fanfic to "right the wrong" of the original material for not being made in the same climate as the follow-up. How dare this movie from 20 years ago not reflect the principals of today! You can make a statement about something or make a new statement without having to drag your source material to do it.


----------



## WarMachine (Jan 11, 2022)

Randy said:


> Woke reboot/reimagining feels like taking good movies, good stories and making half hearted fanfic to "right the wrong" of the original material for not being made in the same climate as the follow-up. How dare this movie from 20 years ago not reflect the principals of today! You can make a statement about something or make a new statement without having to drag your source material to do it.


Exactly this ^. If what i was saying before came off wrong in my first post, then sorry for stepping on toes. But @Randy hit the nail on the head in the above statement.


----------



## narad (Jan 12, 2022)

Randy said:


> Woke-ism (if you wanna call it that) is a real thing in films.
> 
> I'll preface that by saying I'm one of those people that hates reboots and sequels several decades after the fact. In my brain, I like a good movie (or trilogy) to be a finite story from beginning to end in a box and once it's finished, it's finished.
> 
> ...



This is probably not so much what you mean but I found myself annoyed at the Wheel of Time, which has been receiving praise lately for its representation choices vs. Game of Thrones. But when the Aes Sedai (witch coven basically) is like one white girl, one black girl, one indian girl, one asian girl, to me it doesn't seem like good representation but something that seems like such a statistical anomaly that it reminds me more of a university brochure than a realistic situation. Then the fourth wall is kind of broken because I find myself wondering about the general racial demographics of the Wheel of Time world. I feel like better representation in TV is overdue, but it can't be like building a noah's ark of one actor of each race in each prominent role.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 12, 2022)

narad said:


> seems like such a statistical anomaly that it reminds me more of a university brochure than a realistic situation


And that's just it - it's not subtle. You can very plainly see when "representation" is being used as a signal, or just to check a box. I can appreciate that there's some that feel like the political message is something that needs to be upfront and blunt, for a number of reasons, and I won't deny them that take, but I think it's naive to think that nothing is potentially lost in that process.


----------



## profwoot (Jan 12, 2022)

Yeah I just plowed through Witcher Season 2 (which held my attention, despite the convoluted plot) and it's pretty bad in this regard. I still don't really understand who everyone is, despite having played W3 a few times. Poland is all white so I get wanting to diversify it, but everyone being a different color is pretty uncanny in a medieval setting.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 12, 2022)

profwoot said:


> Yeah I just plowed through Witcher Season 2 (which held my attention, despite the convoluted plot) and it's pretty bad in this regard. I still don't really understand who everyone is, despite having played W3 a few times. Poland is all white so I get wanting to diversify it, but everyone being a different color is pretty uncanny in a medieval setting.


It's a fantasy world, they don't have to make everyone white just because it's based off a polish book/game. I didn't find it as blatant as other examples tbh.
I have no problem with representation when it's done well, but most of these companies shit the bed in that regard.

The BBC is super guilty of the whole woke tokenism shit, though they're doing it in a far worse way. I remember one show aimed at teaching kids about ancient Rome and how they affected Britain, where the majority of characters were black, which is just false. There were North African auxiliary legions/soldiers, but they weren't really in Britain from what the records show.
Netflix has been super blatant about it as well, but they're not just checking the skin color box, they want gender/sexuality spectrum too. Damn near every show they make anymore has ALL the gender/sexuality representation, regardless of whether it's organic in the context of the show. They chucked nonbinary and trans kids into Sex Education and Big Mouth, and it was so obviously forced.


Hopefully in the next couple of years all this shit will actually be integrated into the writing or world building, so it'll be less obvious.


----------



## Edika (Jan 12, 2022)

In general even the One persona in the first trilogy felt annoying as hell. Especially if we're talking about a simulated world that theoretically could be hacked and the laws of nature rewritten, as they were doing. So was Neo the only one with latent superhacker abilities that were a quirk of his code instead, you know code cracking experience? In that regard anyone would be able to manipulate the virtual world of Matrix and the fact that Trinity could also is not a strange concept. In the end Neo has his all glory back but Trinity is on equal footing. This time though is not the power of a quirk in the code but the power of love that transcends everything, the love to kick ass and chew bubble gum!

In term of inclusiveness in movies, I'm for it in modern and futuristic movies. However having medieval themed movies or Victorian movies with Asian and Black people as part of the everyday society and even the higher society is ignorant and is causing more bad than good. Because non binary people and other races were sooooooo well received in history...


----------



## TedEH (Jan 12, 2022)

KnightBrolaire said:


> It's a fantasy world, they don't have to make everyone white just because it's based off a polish book/game.


As long as they have that generic British-y "fantasy" accent, amirite?



KnightBrolaire said:


> Netflix


Although given their handling of Chappelle, I'd say they're kinda all over the place when it comes to any sort of "political sides" they might take. I don't think they, as a company, really have any take, other than whatever keeps the lights on for them.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 12, 2022)

Edika said:


> In general even the One persona in the first trilogy felt annoying as hell. Especially if we're talking about a simulated world that theoretically could be hacked and the laws of nature rewritten, as they were doing. So was Neo the only one with latent superhacker abilities that were a quirk of his code instead, you know code cracking experience? In that regard anyone would be able to manipulate the virtual world of Matrix and the fact that Trinity could also is not a strange concept. In the end Neo has his all glory back but Trinity is on equal footing. This time though is not the power of a quirk in the code but the power of love that transcends everything, the love to kick ass and chew bubble gum!
> 
> In term of inclusiveness in movies, I'm for it in modern and futuristic movies. However having medieval themed movies or Victorian movies with Asian and Black people as part of the everyday society and even the higher society is ignorant and is causing more bad than good. Because non binary people and other races were sooooooo well received in history...


They get Smith to say it pretty clearly in this movie "Anybody can be The One". It's not like Neo is the only person in the series with superhuman powers. Morpheus can jump between buildings.


----------



## Edika (Jan 12, 2022)

StevenC said:


> They get Smith to say it pretty clearly in this movie "Anybody can be The One". It's not like Neo is the only person in the series with superhuman powers. Morpheus can jump between buildings.



I didn't remember that line from Smith. Yeah all of the "outsiders" of the Matrix could manipulate the code to some extent, as they were saying in the first movies, but only Neo was supposed to be able to donwhatever he wanted with the Matrix and rewrite reality. As they both did in the end of the movie where the changed the color of the sky.

And just because I found this funny:


----------



## IwantTacos (Jan 12, 2022)

KnightBrolaire said:


> It's a fantasy world, they don't have to make everyone white just because it's based off a polish book/game. I didn't find it as blatant as other examples tbh.
> I have no problem with representation when it's done well, but most of these companies shit the bed in that regard.
> 
> The BBC is super guilty of the whole woke tokenism shit, though they're doing it in a far worse way. I remember one show aimed at teaching kids about ancient Rome and how they affected Britain, where the majority of characters were black, which is just false. There were North African auxiliary legions/soldiers, but they weren't really in Britain from what the records show.
> ...



anti-woke rant.

like if you are going to put minority characters in shows sometimes they are gonna die and sometimes they are going to be the bad guy.

we don't need a news report or twitter storm every time that shit happens.

on topic matrix crap

Now that I thought about it..the analyst's matrix is a completely different matrix from the first one....

it didn't have to keep the divide by zero error of the first one. They wrote it with Neo and trinity coded into it. Whatever. It's fine. I mean it matters absolutely zero just like the movie. So whatever.


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2022)

StevenC said:


> They get Smith to say it pretty clearly in this movie "Anybody can be The One". It's not like Neo is the only person in the series with superhuman powers. Morpheus can jump between buildings.



That kinda defeat the purpose of being called "The One" doesn't it? Have I been getting the definition of the word "one" wrong?


----------



## StevenC (Jan 12, 2022)

Randy said:


> That kinda defeat the purpose of being called "The One" doesn't it? Have I been getting the definition of the word "one" wrong?


As above, new Matrix doesn't have a One, but a two.

The context being Smith's ability to be anywhere at any time. I interpret it as meaning there's nothing specifically special about Neo, but there is something special about everyone believing in him. Anybody could be The One doesn't mean everyone is, but whoever is decided as The One isn't necessarily predetermined to be.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 12, 2022)

TedEH said:


> As long as they have that generic British-y "fantasy" accent, amirite?



That's one of those things that has always irked the shit out of me. Show/movie set in Rome - fake English accents, not fake Italian accents. Show/movie set in Egypt... fucking EGYPT! - fake English accents as well. Show/movie set in some made up fantasy realm - fake English accents.

What gives? Can't actors/actresses just talk in their normal tongue?, cause the audience isn't somehow feeling more immersed in the film with these bullshit accents that aren't any more in-place for the setting.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jan 12, 2022)

The new Bill & Ted was dull enough that I haven't checked out the new Matrix movie. Keanu (and Alex) hurt my feelings and I am still recovering somewhat.


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2022)

StevenC said:


> As above, new Matrix doesn't have a One, but a two.
> 
> The context being Smith's ability to be anywhere at any time. I interpret it as meaning there's nothing specifically special about Neo, but there is something special about everyone believing in him. Anybody could be The One doesn't mean everyone is, but whoever is decided as The One isn't necessarily predetermined to be.



So it's like a mix between Elf and The Santa Clause? Anyone can be the One as long as we believe in ourselves?  Idk, still doesn't sound like a narrative that improves the story or builds the world any better, just "different".


----------



## StevenC (Jan 12, 2022)

Randy said:


> So it's like a mix between Elf and The Santa Clause? Anyone can be the One as long as we believe in ourselves?  Idk, still doesn't sound like a narrative that improves the story or builds the world any better, just "different".


Exactly!

Though, yeah this is a slightly different construction of "the world" built around Neo and Trinity, so that may mean in this specific Matrix there are exactly two people who can be The One together. It implies that Tom Anderson wasn't a significant person in the original Matrix until Morpheus decided so, but in this new Matrix he is incredibly significant.

Alternatively, maybe Neo is special originally and in the real world for some magic reason, but that still results in the new Matrix being built around Trinity and Neo.

I suppose it raises questions about the Oracle and exactly how much she was pulling the strings. The machines gave Oneness to a random person, so we know that much is special about Neo but nothing else is necessarily. He was also the 6th One.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 12, 2022)

Rev2010 said:


> That's one of those things that has always irked the shit out of me. Show/movie set in Rome - fake English accents, not fake Italian accents. Show/movie set in Egypt... fucking EGYPT! - fake English accents as well. Show/movie set in some made up fantasy realm - fake English accents.
> 
> What gives? Can't actors/actresses just talk in their normal tongue?, cause the audience isn't somehow feeling more immersed in the film with these bullshit accents that aren't any more in-place for the setting.


Yessss, I hate that when they all just have generic british accents in period pieces. 
The funnier one is when it's a period piece that takes place outside the US and they have american accents. I tried watching some series about ancient egypt where they all had american accents and had to shut it off because it was so distracting.


----------



## Drew (Jan 12, 2022)

Not going to wade through five pages of fighting here.  

I liked it. It wasn't as good as the original, but it was far better than the two sequels. Sure, there were some holes here and there, but it was _fun_ to watch, and had a sense of humor about itself (little things like the creative team pitching each other about what they thought they needed in a sequel Matrix game to recapture the magic, was funny both on its own, and as a meta-comment about this being a Matrix sequel 20 years after the orginal and no one could agree what made the first one so important). 

The first move was enough of a game-changer that it could be dead earnest and work; the sequels dont have that luxury and I think that same earnestness kind of hurt them (amongst, like, a laundry list of other factors). This one was enjoyable to watch and didn't take itself nearly so seriously, and that really worked.


----------



## Drew (Jan 12, 2022)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Yessss, I hate that when they all just have generic british accents in period pieces.


"Make it foreign, but not TOO foreign." 

All the bad guys are Nazis, all the good guys are British. And some of the Nazis are also British, but they sneer a lot more so you can tell them apart.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jan 12, 2022)

Drew said:


> (little things like the creative team pitching each other about what they thought they needed in a sequel Matrix game to recapture the magic, was funny both on its own, and as a meta-comment about this being a Matrix sequel 20 years after the orginal and no one could agree what made the first one so important).


Honestly this stuff is what killed it for me. I felt like the hollywood film industry meta narrative came at the expense of development of other story aspects. And because of that, Lana Wachowski's implication that WB would have churned out a cynical cash grab fell flat, because with not much to add to the story it was kind of just her own cynical cash grab. The hollywood critique would have been a great article or book but I thought it made the movie feel lazy (along with all the reused footage).


----------



## TedEH (Jan 12, 2022)

Maybe I'm burned out from that "ironic" self-awareness from how over-done it already is in video games, but it really didn't land for me. 

And I'm a tech-y kind of guy and I can watch any of the other Matrix movies without groaning over their treatment of technology, but new Matrix's take on tech and it's place in society reeks of "how did _nobody_ working on this movie understand video games or technology past facebook-is-bad-for-you?" It feels like the script was written by someone who knows the kids these days like those video game things, right? And those are made by like, super hacker tech bros right? Computers, AI, the internet, etc., are all much better understood by the general public now than they ever were, but they still opted for that trope-y video game auteur genius hacker thing that is so implausible as to both take me out of the movie and almost feel like an insult to my intelligence. OG Matrix was at least plausible enough I could suspend some disbelief. This felt like a step back in that regard. "Totally gonna hackzorz the mainframe and tighten up the graphicks on level 3."

Sure, you can write that off in a bunch of ways. "It's the matrix, so it's world doesn't have to be believable, it's all fake anyway." "Not everyone knows how software is made." "Maybe this was supposed to be taken as some subtle in-joke poking fun at how people don't actually understand how these work, and you just, like, didn't get it. Woosh, bro." "The Matrix themselves pioneered some dumb tech tropes." Except that gamers aren't a niche anymore (which they are aware of, otherwise they wouldn't have jammed a game dev narrative into the movie, IMO). And the originals never did anything with tech that was clearly based on a misunderstanding of the source material - either it was plausible, or it was intentionally out there for thematic reasons - but it was never "just jam computer shit in there, cause our audience will never know the difference".


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 13, 2022)

TedEH said:


> It feels like the script was written by someone who knows the kids these days like those video game things, right? And those are made by like, super hacker tech bros right?



Just felt the need to set this straight as a professional IT Tech of over 22 years, someone that has done hacking, and someone that has done 3D modeling/animation (short stint at an actual game company too).... game designers/computer programmers are *NOT* hackers! Hackers are more computer security/security flaw experts that find and/or exploit vulnerabilities in computer software/hardware. Hacking takes a _lot_ of time learning/testing/experimenting/executing. It's way more than a casual hobby, same goes for learning how to program, 3D model, 3D animate, etc. Most hackers know way more about networking than actual programming. 

Point is simply that they are not one and the same


----------



## TedEH (Jan 13, 2022)

And that's just my point - game devs are abundant and available and usually more than willing to talk about it (like me, I'll take any opportunity to remind people that I'm a dev, have been for almost 10 years, and have worked on a bunch of stuff people have actually played) - so it would have been abundantly easy for them to consult with _anyone_ who could tell them that their depiction is so far removed from how game design and development works that it's almost insulting. And that's even if you play loose with the semantics and let "hacker" mean anyone who makes heavy use of a computer. I can easily vouch that your average game dev type is not a security expert by any stretch.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Jan 13, 2022)

KnightBrolaire said:


> The BBC is super guilty of the whole woke tokenism shit, though they're doing it in a far worse way. I remember one show aimed at teaching kids about ancient Rome and how they affected Britain, where the majority of characters were black, which is just false. There were North African auxiliary legions/soldiers, but they weren't really in Britain from what the records show.



Your wrong about that actually. Try reading what Mary Beard (Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge, fellow of Newnham College, and Royal Academy of Arts Professor of Ancient Literature) has to say about the ethnic diversity of Britian during the Roman occupation. Facts aren't woke tokenism

On topic. Glad this thread was created before I saw the film and wasted time and money on it


----------



## Drew (Jan 13, 2022)

Electric Wizard said:


> Honestly this stuff is what killed it for me. I felt like the hollywood film industry meta narrative came at the expense of development of other story aspects. And because of that, Lana Wachowski's implication that WB would have churned out a cynical cash grab fell flat, because with not much to add to the story it was kind of just her own cynical cash grab. The hollywood critique would have been a great article or book but I thought it made the movie feel lazy (along with all the reused footage).


So, honest question, what's the alternative here? 

The original Matrix was a movie about questioning the reality of subjective experience and everything you know being a lie, and introduced visual effects that, well, the movie storyline could have sucked and people STILL would have been talking about the Matrix today. 

Where do you go from there? Imply that even that other reality isn't real, and invent bullettime 2.0? The latter they kinda did with Neil Patrick Harris walking around while verytone else was essentially frozen, I guess, but they had the good sense to make that pretty incidental and make the focus of those scenes about the dialogue. 

In some ways, making a sequel for a movie like The Matrix is a trap. All the things that made it awesome were things that basically no one had ever seen or done before. If you try to do them again, but bigger and MORE serious... well, we all saw and promptly repressed 2 and 3. I honestly don't know what direction you go in a sequel without at least injecting some meta-humor so the movie's pretension doesn't become its undoing.

Legitimate question, btw, if you were directing this I'd love to know what you would have done differently.


----------



## IwantTacos (Jan 13, 2022)

Drew said:


> So, honest question, what's the alternative here?
> 
> The original Matrix was a movie about questioning the reality of subjective experience and everything you know being a lie, and introduced visual effects that, well, the movie storyline could have sucked and people STILL would have been talking about the Matrix today.
> 
> ...



2 hours of the robot war.


----------



## Drew (Jan 13, 2022)

IwantTacos said:


> 2 hours of the robot war.


 

From a continuity/advancing the storyline standpoint, this would make no sense at all. It'd probably be good viewing, though, in the Michael Bay "lots of explosions" sense of the word.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 13, 2022)

Drew said:


> Legitimate question, btw, if you were directing this I'd love to know what you would have done differently.


I already posted my alternative plot thoughts earlier - and I'd even fleshed it out a little more later on in my head, but in short:
Humans think they've won the war until programs realize they can also escape the matrix by taking jacked-in humans hostage (something something "ransomware" analogy). This takes the fight out of the matrix and into the real world, where the solution/climax comes from realizing it's been Matrix-ception the whole time, explaining why the one had powers outside the matrix. Maybe some new protagonist also has "real"-world one powers. Instead of "winning", they sequel-bait with "but what's happening in the REAL real world?!"

Alternatively, I think most people involved knew that making this movie at all was a trap. The best answer would have been not to make the movie at all. Or make a different movie that isn't billed as a direct sequel to the movie but shares it's themes or some element of it's universe or something.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 13, 2022)

TedEH said:


> Humans think they've won the war until programs realize they can also escape the matrix by taking jacked-in humans hostage (something something "ransomware" analogy)



Not a bad idea, and would've been a much better watch IMO, however the story-line would be flawed. Reason being is programs could still technically be in the real world, they'd simply need to be loaded into a physical robot body. All the machines that are going about their business in the real world are still machines with a program controlling it. In the first movie Smith said he wants out of the Matrix, and to do so he had to get the codes to the Zion mainframe so they can destroy the humans in the real world. That to me says that if they eliminated the trouble makers in the real world that were using the Matrix to free people and cause trouble that Smith would then be reassigned to some function in the real world, in the Machine City. Plus, I'm not so sure programs would want to take the risk of entering into a fragile/finite body just to live in poverty. Just wouldn't make much sense. Smith did it to try and kill Neo.

Then again who knows. They did say repeatedly in the films that any program that no longer serves a purpose is returned to the source, but if that is true and nothing is reassigned then I can't see why Smith wanted so eagerly to finish the job so he can be relieved of his duties in the Matrix.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 13, 2022)

Because I have no life, I've realized another thing that bothered me about The Re-Matrixening. The reflections. Did I mention the reflections before? Because the original films had this thing about reflections where they were almost always very deliberate. Like nobody ever had shades on without reflecting something significant in them. New movie I think threw this out.

And I get it, not every movie has to do every trick it's just...... I dunno, it feels like modern films don't care about that kind of detail anymore.

But just to balance it out - you know what, I did like the intro bits about re-creating the shots from the first film's intro. It's another one of those "I wish they had run farther with this idea" kind of things, where they had new characters live out a whole new iteration - and there'd be the opportunity to impress film nerds with how much of the details they got right etc., while handwaving the mistakes as the small differences in the new iteration etc.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 14, 2022)

TedEH said:


> Because I have no life, I've realized another thing that bothered me about The Re-Matrixening. The reflections. Did I mention the reflections before? Because the original films had this thing about reflections where they were almost always very deliberate. Like nobody ever had shades on without reflecting something significant in them. New movie I think threw this out.
> 
> And I get it, not every movie has to do every trick it's just...... I dunno, it feels like modern films don't care about that kind of detail anymore.
> 
> But just to balance it out - you know what, I did like the intro bits about re-creating the shots from the first film's intro. It's another one of those "I wish they had run farther with this idea" kind of things, where they had new characters live out a whole new iteration - and there'd be the opportunity to impress film nerds with how much of the details they got right etc., while handwaving the mistakes as the small differences in the new iteration etc.


In the entire first part of the movie every time we see Neo in a mirror that isn't from his perspective it isn't Keanu. Like there's a shot in his bathroom when he's taking pills from his left side and we see his DSI in the mirror. Equally, there's a shot of Trinity's DSI in the coffee table reflection. 

Similar to how the first zoomed out shot from Bugs's perspective of Neo walking off the building is his DSI then when it zooms in it's actually Keanu.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 14, 2022)

If it's there, I didn't notice it. I remember watching for people's glasses and not seeing anything, maybe I missed it.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 14, 2022)

TedEH said:


> If it's there, I didn't notice it. I remember watching for people's glasses and not seeing anything, maybe I missed it.


Really? I couldn't help but notice it. That's the whole point of the DSI reveal where they show Neo what everyone else sees in the mirror. Neo even reacts to seeing Trinity's reflection.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 14, 2022)

I mean, yeah, I saw it when it was spelled out as the plot point - I'm talking about scenes where the characters aren't actively calling it out. It's not thoughtful cinematography when it's in the script.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 14, 2022)

TedEH said:


> I mean, yeah, I saw it when it was spelled out as the plot point - I'm talking about scenes where the characters aren't actively calling it out. It's not thoughtful cinematography when it's in the script.


There are a bunch of scenes where you see the Tom Anderson character being played by a different actor, specifically in various reflection shots like in his bathroom and just before Bugs "sees" him. These are meant to be obvious that something is off because every time I saw one of those shots I thought there was some massive mistake in the editing. This is to make there be an actual reveal.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 14, 2022)

Fair enough


----------



## Andii (Jun 29, 2022)

I've read a pile of books since I watched this film. Thousands of pages.

The story is 100% symbolism. Just as the very first and "best" Matrix film was. Except the first Matrix film could be taken literally enough for everyone to enjoy the story line.

The story of Matrix Resurrections is nonsense without being able to interpret it. It's an enormous hidden message and every single scene is that way. The story being nonsense without being able to interpret it is to prevent the audience from projecting onto it. You either understand it, or you do not and there is no room for a perceived inbetween. The depth of the symbolism is too specific.


*The themes are:*

A deep understanding of Psychology:
Consciousness, the conscious mind and the subconscious mind as it pertains to bringing their disconnection into awareness

Influence
Hypnosis
Color coding
Technology
Archetypes
symbolism
Iconology
Spirituality
Mass media and social media
Propaganda
Religion
Sociology
Academia
Socioeconomics
Enlightenment

For me to explain everything would be "spoilers" and that is why writers/directors do not share the meanings of their films. The literal events that take place are not the story. The meaning is.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 29, 2022)

"you wouldn't get it bro, it's 2deep4u"

nah it's just an awful movie.


----------



## nightflameauto (Jun 29, 2022)

KnightBrolaire said:


> "you wouldn't get it bro, it's 2deep4u"
> 
> nah it's just an awful movie.


Yeah. This.

I hate to say it, but sometimes creators get too deep into their own funk and forget to realize that the audience hasn't lived their entire lives within the same headspace as the creator. Talented creators learn how to bridge those gaps and slowly pull an audience into the headspace they want them in. Untalented hacks and preachy whiners tend to forget about that part of the equation and then spend years babbling about how their creation was just too deep and impressive for the mere plebes in the audience to understand.

Not to say that creation for its own sake is a bad thing. I hope the creative team is happy with what they put out and can view the movie as they intended it to be. That does not, in any way, shape, or form mean that I'm going to pat them on the head for putting out what appears to most of us to be a mess.


----------



## IwantTacos (Jun 29, 2022)

Andii said:


> I've read a pile of books since I watched this film. Thousands of pages.
> 
> The story is 100% symbolism. Just as the very first and "best" Matrix film was. Except the first Matrix film could be taken literally enough for everyone to enjoy the story line.
> 
> ...



I have 2/3s of a phd in this shit and I can tell you this movie was a steaming pile of garbage.

go watch dark city or read the invisibles if you want this shit done correctly.

you think the people behind Jupiter ascending are smart enough to make this work. fuck it you're probably smarter then they are and just from reading your post I have you pegged 3 levels behind blind donkey.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Jun 29, 2022)

I watched the new one on a plane trip. It's free from Southwest yet I still feel ripped off.
Parts 2 3 and now this one all have something in common- I hate them yet I still watch through to the end lol. These Wachoskiees have been exposed- the first is brilliant but 100% plagiarized frame by frame. Kudos to them for finding special fx people and bringing that to the screen at the time. After that, they make M Night look like an interesting film maker


----------



## nightflameauto (Jun 29, 2022)

crankyrayhanky said:


> I watched the new one on a plane trip. It's free from Southwest yet I still feel ripped off.
> Parts 2 3 and now this one all have something in common- I hate them yet I still watch through to the end lol. These Wachoskiees have been exposed- the first is brilliant but 100% plagiarized frame by frame. Kudos to them for finding special fx people and bringing that to the screen at the time. After that, they make M Night look like an interesting film maker


Hey, woah there pard'ner. I can totes get blasted on edibles and enjoy watching Speed Racer. Same can't be said for Last Air Bender. That shitshow is so horrible even an addled brain can't enjoy it.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 29, 2022)

IwantTacos said:


> I have 2/3s of a phd in this shit and I can tell you this movie was a steaming pile of garbage.
> 
> go watch dark city or read the invisibles if you want this shit done correctly.
> 
> you think the people behind Jupiter ascending are smart enough to make this work. fuck it you're probably smarter then they are and just from reading your post I have you pegged 3 levels behind blind donkey.



Do you know the way to Shell Beach?


----------



## Andii (Jun 29, 2022)

IwantTacos said:


> I have 2/3s of a phd in this shit and I can tell you this movie was a steaming pile of garbage.
> 
> go watch dark city or read the invisibles if you want this shit done correctly.
> 
> you think the people behind Jupiter ascending are smart enough to make this work. fuck it you're probably smarter then they are and just from reading your post I have you pegged 3 levels behind blind donkey.


It looks like you're having an emotional reaction to the thought of something going over your head without engaging me with anything meaningful or of any substance.

Ad Hominem​
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.




crankyrayhanky said:


> These Wachoskiees have been exposed- the first is brilliant but 100% plagiarized frame by frame.


Tell me about this. What are you referring to?


----------



## IwantTacos (Jun 29, 2022)

Andii said:


> It looks like you're having an emotional reaction to the thought of something going over your head without engaging me with anything meaningful or of any substance.
> 
> Ad Hominem​
> (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
> ...



You don’t even fucking know the invisibles you twit


----------



## sakeido (Jun 29, 2022)

IwantTacos said:


> I have 2/3s of a phd in this shit and I can tell you this movie was a steaming pile of garbage.
> 
> go watch dark city or read the invisibles if you want this shit done correctly.
> 
> you think the people behind Jupiter ascending are smart enough to make this work. fuck it you're probably smarter then they are and just from reading your post I have you pegged 3 levels behind blind donkey.


they're also the people behind the first Matrix and Speed Racer ... Dark City is a great movie for sure, but isn't dealing with any of the same themes... you've been working on your PhD for 10 years with no end in sight, I guess? Don't think you're gonna make it bud


----------



## IwantTacos (Jun 29, 2022)

sakeido said:


> they're also the people behind the first Matrix and Speed Racer ... Dark City is a great movie for sure, but isn't dealing with any of the same themes... you've been working on your PhD for 10 years with no end in sight, I guess? Don't think you're gonna make it bud



I quit a long time ago. Actually do work versus sit on my ass all day spending my trust fund was an easy decision to make.


----------



## Andii (Jun 29, 2022)

IwantTacos said:


> You don’t even fucking know the invisibles you twit


Ad Hominem​
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.




sakeido said:


> they're also the people behind the first Matrix


Exactly.


----------



## Drew (Jun 29, 2022)

Andii said:


> For me to explain everything would be "spoilers" and that is why writers/directors do not share the meanings of their films. The literal events that take place are not the story. The meaning is.


I'm happy to hear you out - you know we have [ spoiler ] [ / spoiler ] tags here, right?


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Jun 29, 2022)

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is both incredibly deep and a steaming pile of garbage.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but the more I think about it the more comfortable I am comparing Zarathustra with Matrix:Resurrections. Poor Zarathustra just wanted to share his wOkEnEsS with the unwashed masses, and they just didn't give a fuck, over and over. 

Damn I'm not even stoned yet.


----------



## nightflameauto (Jun 29, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> Thus Spoke Zarathustra is both incredibly deep and a steaming pile of garbage.
> 
> I'm not saying that's the case here, but the more I think about it the more comfortable I am comparing Zarathustra with Matrix:Resurrections. Poor Zarathustra just wanted to share his wOkEnEsS with the unwashed masses, and they just didn't give a fuck, over and over.
> 
> Damn I'm not even stoned yet.


That's . . . 
that's. . . 
that's like... like, beautiful, man.


----------



## works0fheart (Jul 7, 2022)

Andii said:


> I've read a pile of books since I watched this film. Thousands of pages.
> 
> The story is 100% symbolism. Just as the very first and "best" Matrix film was. Except the first Matrix film could be taken literally enough for everyone to enjoy the story line.
> 
> ...



Oh, ow, my brain, why, oh god, oh fuck.

This is some "Im12andThisisDeep" stuff on another level. 

bravo, 5/5, good troll.


----------



## Andii (Jul 12, 2022)

"Oh, ow, my brain, why, oh god, oh fuck.
This is some "Im12andThisisDeep" stuff on another level.
bravo, 5/5, good troll."
-works0fheart​


----------



## StevenC (Jul 12, 2022)

Honestly, I liked the movie. But if this is the kind of company, maybe I need to rethink my position.


----------



## nightflameauto (Jul 12, 2022)

Andii said:


> "Oh, ow, my brain, why, oh god, oh fuck.
> This is some "Im12andThisisDeep" stuff on another level.
> bravo, 5/5, good troll."
> -works0fheart​


I read a paragraph of that and felt my brain-stem trying to fight its way out of my spinal column. WTF?


----------



## Andii (Jul 12, 2022)

nightflameauto said:


> I read a paragraph of that and felt my brain-stem trying to fight its way out of my spinal column. WTF?


That's a perfectly natural response to that stimulus, especially without the massive context needed. I just wanted to start backing up the fact that there is source material for my claims of there being a "meaning" of the films other than the literal events of the plot taking place on screen because I can see that people are not responding to it very openly. 

I perceive that people feel attacked when they feel as though I am saying something went over their head. But if the thing that is going over one's head is because among other things, they haven't read weird texts that might look like the ramblings of the mentally ill to them for hours on end, it's just a fact with no connotation or judgement attached.

What I posted there is highly likely to be part of the inspiration of the matrix series and touches on a few of the concepts that are involved. I do not endorse or subscribe to the theory proposed in that text. It is a book that was written right before the beginning of the scientific based psychology that we have now. The ideas within are what gave some direction to the scientific study of the human mind in the west. Some of that text is nonsense and some of it is very plausible and unable to be disproven. It lurks right outside of the boundary of what is yet to be scientifically explained.

A necessary digression:
There are many parallels with Buddhism, spiritual enlightenment and western psychology. This is something that many psychologists are very well aware of. What is very old and spiritual is what gives direction to the course of the more cold and objective scientific research that confirms and explains. *They are both the pursuit of giving an individual control of their mind and aligning the conscious mind to the vast subconscious processes that happen outside of the narrow awareness of consciousness that we experience as our perceived "self". *

The human mind is a stack of parts that predate civilization with many odd quirks and glitches. *The more that we understand about it, the more there are people in power intentionally exploiting that body of detailed knowledge to control and direct societies and suppress individuation. *

The very first film is the easiest to deconstruct the meaning of, but I have never seen it posted online and I'm not going to do it. There is a reason why the film makers refuse to explain it publicly in interviews and I agree with that decision. I could never do it justice like someone discovering it on their own and truly UNDERSTANDING rather than just being told in some manner that was even somewhat concise. *But most importantly: To be told what to think, rather than how to think would ruin the deepest level of meaning.*

The most I can simplify it is that the entire series is spiritual enlightenment packaged into a literal action movie plot. The messages are extremely counter cultural and highly critical of society as a whole. *I would describe the true meaning of the series as the single most subversive piece of mass media I have ever witnessed. *

I am genuinely not trying to pull some "2 deep 4u" posturing here. Don't shoot the messenger. I am revealing that there is far more than the literal events of the plot and hopefully provoking thought.


----------



## Andii (Jul 12, 2022)

*Here is an excerpt referenced in "The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious". "The Three Principles of the Divine Essence" by Jakob Böhme written 1618–1619.*

11. All that has been born in this third Principle continues eternally in the Matrix. And if a Man
has in this Lifetime is not reborn into the second principle, then he shall remain eternally in the
Matrix, yet not reach the Light of God.
12. The Matrix is inanimate and void of Understanding, and in this World there is no true
Understanding, either in the Stars, or in the Elements; and in all its Creatures there is only an
Understanding of how to operate, to nourish itself, and to increase, in the matrix.


This is the way that "The Matrix" was named. And virtually everything in the films can be traced to it's original inspiration. That is just deconstructing the name of the series and giving some sliver insight into the meaning and intention of it.


----------



## jaxadam (Jul 12, 2022)

Andii said:


> The very first film is the easiest to deconstruct the meaning of, but I have never seen it posted online and I'm not going to do it.



Can you give me, like, a hint?


----------



## profwoot (Jul 12, 2022)

jaxadam said:


> Can you give me, like, a hint?









I was really into The Matrix back in the day (until 2&3 came out). There's a lot there. 

To respond more generally, surely it's not controversial on this forum that writers often use metaphors and symbolism to explore subjects beyond the characters' story arcs? In the case of the latest film, the question isn't whether the writers had deeper ambitions, it's whether they were able to fulfill them while telling an interesting story (which, no).


----------



## jaxadam (Jul 13, 2022)

Not a lot of people know this, but these movies are straight plagiarized from a book by Dr. Suess called “Linear Algebra”.


----------



## narad (Jul 13, 2022)

StevenC said:


> Honestly, I liked the movie. But if this is the kind of company, maybe I need to rethink my position.



You should probably rethink your position regardless.


----------



## works0fheart (Jul 14, 2022)

When you've gotta read an elongated essay to backup the plot of the movie the material of the movie probably isn't great. It very well may bring things together in a way that causes it to make more sense, but this has been seen as a net negative with every movie/video game/story driven anything over the past 10+ years. Not everyone wants to have to go to that level to enjoy a 2 hour movie. They shouldn't have to go that level when other movies manage to tell a story in around the same amount of time and have it be coherent.


----------



## nightflameauto (Jul 14, 2022)

works0fheart said:


> When you've gotta read an elongated essay to backup the plot of the movie the material of the movie probably isn't great. It very well may bring things together in a way that causes it to make more sense, but this has been seen as a net negative with every movie/video game/story driven anything over the past 10+ years. Not everyone wants to have to go to that level to enjoy a 2 hour movie. They shouldn't have to go that level when other movies manage to tell a story in around the same amount of time and have it be coherent.


Yeah.

I mean, I get the backlash to the dumb action flick that literally has nothing beneath the shiny, shiny surface and wanting to have a little intellectual stimulation with your movie / story, but there's intellectual, and then there's, "You should have studied your $philosophy_book if you wanted to enjoy the film," shittery.


----------



## Andii (Jul 23, 2022)

profwoot said:


> I was really into The Matrix back in the day (until 2&3 came out). There's a lot there.
> 
> To respond more generally, surely it's not controversial on this forum that writers often use metaphors and symbolism to explore subjects beyond the characters' story arcs? In the case of the latest film, the question isn't whether the writers had deeper ambitions, it's whether they were able to fulfill them while telling an interesting story (which, no).


Great post. Everyone that has said that the story needs to be compelling regardless how clever the metaphors are makes a valid argument. That was where the greatness in the first film was, it connected to the most people.


Have you read that book? I'm super curious about what is in it. Every attempt I have ever seen to explain The Matrix never gets past taking the plot too literally and talks about machines, AI and computer simulations a lot, which is nearly irrelevant to the deepest meaning of the film. People think on the wrong side of the metaphor. 

I have been trying to read reviews of that book now that I know about it, and I can't get a read on it from reviews, so if you could share a bit that would be much appreciated.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Oct 3, 2022)

A bit late to the party in seeing this but... I like it personally, but I can see why so many aren't on board with Resurrections. 

Having Lana Wachowski getting angry and making a meta-deconstructionist sequel tearing the original trilogy apart is the same spirit Joe Dante did with Gremlins 2. Or if the Star Wars sequel trilogy started with Last Jedi instead of Force Awakens (I can already imagine the fanboy backlash ). And of course the Wachowskis were never about subtlety either. The first movie was a standalone game changer, but with WB practically mandating the 2 sequels to the Wachowskis, I can see why Lana would be angry about it. 

I respect the amount of guts to make these kind of movies, and it 'mostly' lands here for me. A lot of the shamelessness is a bit on the clumsy side (Warner Bros name drop), but that's expected if you want hit somebody on the nose (WB history demanding forced sequels, Hobbit and Gremlins 2 incidentally). Lack of Yuen Woo Ping choreography hurts the action scenes, but then again Ping is in his 80s, and somehow suits the theme of a 'tired' Neo. 

With a lot of shameless empty husk of nostalgia worship property coming out (in this case, came out the same time as Ghostbusters Afterlife), it's a nice antidote, even if it doesn't always hit the mark.


----------



## p0ke (Oct 3, 2022)

I don't remember if I commented when the movie came out, but I mostly enjoyed it. Yeah it wasn't as mind blowing as the first Matrix movie, but even the original sequels didn't get anywhere close, so it would've been unfair to expect anything like that. Coming in with zero (or less than zero) expectations and without too deep thinking, it was an entertaining 2 hours or so.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Oct 3, 2022)

I thought it'd be funny to quote my mom about the movie. She said " what a steaming pile of dogshit, I wish I had never watched it". My mom isn't exactly a discerning movie watcher either. She will watch basically anything, and rarely will films get her to utter comments beyond "meh" or " it's good". I think it's impressive that the movie was so shitty it got my mom angry for having watched it. That's a rare feat previously only accomplished by the last star wars trilogy 



bad movie is still bad.
As far as I'm concerned everything besides the first two (and animatrix) doesn't exist.


----------

