CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Time for a new Matrix discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Time for a new Matrix discussion - Page 2

post #51 of 245

The problem is that the meta-narrative took over the narrative.  For me anyway.

Ideally I think your rampant symbolism and sub text should unite with the main subject at the end of the story. But thanks to much that happened even after the Matrix they had become inextricable before the sequels even started.  All the weird plot contortions and introductions get this instant apology as being about something else, despite actively working against the main story being as coherent as we'd like it to be.  You even get people saying that the fight scenes being ever more technical and lifeless as things went on is a metaphor (man) for the (like) deterministic world view the film is (like) trying to slide into your consciousness.  Hmm, no, sorry.  Being engaging is more important.

I'm not against it as a project and I've warmed to it over the years, after my initial irritation.  I generally enjoy it and get what they're trying to do.  But there's almost no one who can pull this off well.  It's ambitious but not impossible.  Try as they might the Watchowskis together couldn't be one Alan Moore.

post #52 of 245

Nooj nails it.  The first is more focused in it's philosophical musings, while the sequels touch on this incredible breadth of religious/philosophical topic, but only in passing and even that is obfuscated by the distractingly convoluted plot.  The original had that warm, familiar blanket of a heroic structure to make the pontificating go down smoother, in addition to marrying its most ponderous thematic moments to memorable visuals.  Red pill, blue pill.  Cypher's juicy steak.  The spoon that isn't.  I'm trying to think of a similar bit of philosophizing in the sequels that had a striking image to illustrate it, and all I can conjure is a bunch of people in dark clothes lecturing other people in dark clothes (and frequently, sunglasses). 

post #53 of 245

Yes!  That's exactly what I wanted to get across about how well the first film was told visually/cinematically.

 

In the sequels, the Zion elder is all:

"Man... I wanna talk to you about the machines."

And refers to a bunch of... machines.

 

The Merovingian did has his Orgasm Cake, I guess. 

post #54 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Nooj nails it.  The first is more focused in it's philosophical musings, while the sequels touch on this incredible breadth of religious/philosophical topic, but only in passing and even that is obfuscated by the distractingly convoluted plot.  The original had that warm, familiar blanket of a heroic structure to make the pontificating go down smoother, in addition to marrying its most ponderous thematic moments to memorable visuals.  Red pill, blue pill.  Cypher's juicy steak.  The spoon that isn't.  I'm trying to think of a similar bit of philosophizing in the sequels that had a striking image to illustrate it, and all I can conjure is a bunch of people in dark clothes lecturing other people in dark clothes (and frequently, sunglasses). 


Colonel Sanders.

 

 

 

post #55 of 245

Running into a clip from I HEART HUCKABEES on Youtube, I realized that David O. Russell's film may be cinematic cousins with the Matrix sequels. 

post #56 of 245

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post


I diagree - in my opinion, it worked like gangbusters. You're looking at this as a screenwriter and deciding the story you would have written - but you didn't write it.

 

You seem to be judging the sequels on what you wanted them to be and what you wanted them to achieve rather than on what they actually are and what the Wachowskis were setting out to do.

 

I dunno, it smacks of hubris to me.


This accurately describes about 80% of the film criticism on this board. 

post #57 of 245


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

 

The Merovingian did has his Orgasm Cake, I guess. 



Even that depicts the orgasm via lines of computer code.  Points for trying to show while you're telling, but it's also a little too easy to use that as a metaphor for the series depiction of human emotion in general.

 

Another great image from the original: Morpheus holding up a Duracell.  Not an Acme Brand C Cell Battery, but the most recognizable type on the planet.   Which rather than distract with product placement, serves to underline the dehumanizing nature of the Matrix even further as we associate it with big soulless companies that bleed their employees/customers dry to produce profits the little people will never see (...).  Plus, it has that dark two-tone color scheme that fits into the look of the Matrix in a way that an Energizer Lithium's Extreme Cool Ranch design wouldn't.

post #58 of 245
post #59 of 245

I feel like Nordling drives a little too hard on the specific post-9/11ism of the films (considering their development occurred ahead of the event, and I believe they were filming when it happened), but the general sentiment is interesting. The Wachowskis are certainly anti-war, and there's a reason they decided to make a groundbreaking epic explicitly about eternal recurrence. It was already the major theme of the Matrix sequels, since the ending is ultimately that the whole system is inevitably going to go through this cycle X more times, hopefully getting a little better with each occurrence  When the Matrix reloads in the third film, it's contingent on an agreement that improves the scenario, but peace won't last. It's like a soul going through life over and over until reach Nirvana- a little better or a little worse every time. With that backdrop, it's fair to say their anti-war films in spirit at the very least.

post #60 of 245
Thanks for linking that. As much crap I gave the sequels in this thread, I really do love them.
post #61 of 245

Actually this recent and awesome 36 minute video interview is what you need to satisfy your ponderings of what the Wachowskis wanted to accomplish with the Matrix trilogy.  Absolutely essential viewing.

post #62 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

The biggest problem with the series is Neo.  The brothers basically blew their wad in the first Matrix by having him become an all powerful god at the end, giving him no room to progress in the sequels.  Neo spends the rest of his time in the sequels just looking confused, not knowing what to do, and playing around with his god like powers, but he's Superman and Superman has no complexities and its a boring character because of that.  One of the best things about the first Matrix is seeing Neo try and fulfill his potential...at the end he essentially accomplishes that, and the sequels become boring because he doesn't have anywhere to go.  The only vital thing he does in the sequels is kill the rogue Agent Smith, but he could have done that while also in the process of gaining his One like powers...developing over time in each film.  You could still include the architect, and I feel it would've been an even more powerful scene if Neo had no yet achieved his god like One status yet, throwing a kink into the proceedings. 

 

The first movie should have ended right after Neo saved Trinity from the helicopter.  It was a powerful enough statement that he'd started his journey to becoming The One by knowing she'd grab onto the rope with his intuition...coupled with moving as fast as the agents with the slow motion bullet dodging shot, this was PLENTY and showed that Neo had promise.  Morpheus goes "do you believe it now Trinity?" at the end of the helicopter explosion.  It was a powerful scene, and I don't understand why they couldn't just end the movie there.  Trinity also professes her love for Neo and they spend the sequel as a boring couple because, again, the wad had been blown and there is nowhere for the relationship to progress.  A better alternative would have been for Trinity and Neo to have romantic chemistry, but leave it at that, and allow their relationship to blossom into love in the sequels.  Trinity's death in the third movie would have been more tragic that way because they'd have just recently fallen in love...not been in love since the first movie and having nowhere interesting to go with that relationship.

 

If the brothers truly had sequels in mind from the beginning, they would have waited to give Neo the complete "One" treatment in the sequels, giving him room to progress.  It's like if Luke became a fully fledged jedi at the end of A New Hope, which would've been silly...Luke was shown to have extraordinary talent by blowing up the deathstar, but he was not yet a jedi, there was simply no need for it then.  The first movie had plenty of action, adventure, excitement and promise of things to come, without throwing in everything but the kitchen sink in the last act, much like The Matrix.  The sequels left plenty of room for Luke's development and they were vastly more interesting films because of that, especially Empire (Jedi was silly, but the throne room stuff is amazing).  I feel like The Matrix trilogy could've truly been on the level of the Star Wars original trilogy, but the brothers really blew it.  Such a sad, missed opportunity there.  The scripts were terrible I believe, because they no longer had an interesting journey for the main character to undertake...


I pretty much agreed with the first paragraph, at least in terms of why the story arc for the sequels is less engrossing.

But ending the first movie before Neo confronts Smith and is resurrected, thus proving he is the Christ figure referenced throughout the entire film? That does not seem like a better ending to me. There is no climax! The central question of the film is left unanswered and then we have another Matrix 3.

And believe it or not, the brothers did have sequels in mind at a pretty early stage. They actually shot a scene for the first film in which Cypher reveals to Neo that there were 6 Ones before him, and inexplicably removed it. (This is documented in the book "The Art of the Matrix", released Dec. 2000). There is also much talk in that book about concept art that was never utilized for the original but would be used for the sequels, such as the machine gun suits. There are also interviews which allude to a larger story arc created by the brothers prior to the release of the original.

That being said, it's inarguable that once the main character has achieved godlike status there aren't many problems that he can't surmount. Which is why the brothers opted for more abstract/existential problems - what is the function of the one, is the prophecy another system of control, is Neo truly free, does it matter if he's free, is Neo a machine, is Smith correct in his disdain for humans, is the Merovingian's perspective inescapable in that we are all victims of causes which precede us, is the future already determined and what does this mean for the "choices" we make, etc. This didn't work for most people and in terms of cinema it's extremely non-traditional. You also have a point about the Neo-Trinity relationship, but I believe that has more to do with the writing/directing of the relationship than the actual story. It's a chronic problem with sci-fi films (see Star Wars).

Pacing is a problem. The Zion scenes drag on, and for a film that pays such close attention to logical processes the siege of Zion makes zero sense. I enjoyed it in the theater but upon subsequent views the whole thing comes off as insipid and dull.

The second one was actually very good - it raised a shitload of very interesting questions in addition to the ones listed above: Can the Oracle be trusted? Is the Architect right in that resistance is futile? Does Smith have ulterior motives or is he simply a virus created by Neo messing with his functioning as a program? If Zion has been exterminated multiple times, do the elders remember any of the process and are they in on the system of control? How did Neo stop the sentinels? Is the desert of the real another literal matrix? Is Neo still dreaming? A few of these were explicitly answered, most implicitly, and some were pretty much neglected. The biggest problem I have is this: How did Neo stop the sentinels?

It was a very misleading and cheap move to end the movie on this note, which implies that some sort of huge reveal is coming in the final chapter only to be glossed over by the Oracle with a single, nebulous sentence: "the function of the One extends all the way to the Source" or some BS like that. Perhaps it's my own fault for reading too much into it, but for a series of films where analysis is not only encouraged but necessary in order to fully appreciate the films, the third movie was a major letdown and ultimately required a bit too much fill-in-the-blanks for my taste. Combined with the earth-shattering reveal of the real world as a simulation in the first film, another reveal was very strongly suggested for the final chapter. And it never happened. We get an hour of nonsensical swarming and guns to show us what we already figured was true: Zion has been exterminated 6 times and the humans are powerless to stop it. The difference for this cycle is the Oracle's humanistic gamble which pays off due to her intuition and challenging of the cold calculus of the machines represented by the Architect.

I don't want to get in to "should haves" but the siege of Zion could have been shown in twenty minutes. Compared to the Terminators it's like the sentinels are a bunch of stormtroopers. The machine city is fascinating and we're only allowed to see it for 3 minutes. Why did Neo have to return to the source in the first place? Is Deus ex Machina the mainframe that houses the Architect? I thought The Architect's room was the source? How is Neo destroying all of those sentinel bombs? Are the Wachowskis saying he's reached a metaphysical enlightenment and achieved actual telekinetic powers? Or is he a machine? When Smith copies Neo, are they cancelling each other out as +1 and -1 combine to equal zero? But if that's the case, why did Neo have to return to the machine city? Did Deus ex Machina gain the ability to delete the Smith program when it copied over Neo? Or was the Oracle's plan to engineer this chain of events that led to Neo making a deal with the machines predicated on his elimination of the Smith program that was also a direct result of her intervention? We get some closure on that last question, but the final sequence of the film is insanely ambiguous. These characters are interesting - the Zion people are not.

An important point that many people missed is that the Orcale allowed Smith to gain her power because she knew this would lead to his demise ("we can never see past the choices we don't understand"). When Smith refers to Neo by his name, that's the Oracle talking, reassuring him that she has foreseen this and everything is going according to her plan. When Neo realizes his sacrifice is inevitable, though, I have to wonder why he couldn't have let Smith overwrite him earlier. Did he have to "walk through the door himself" or "understand the choice he already made", and this realization had to occur on the path that the Oracle sent him on? Or did Deus ex Machina play some necessary role in removing Smith?

Smith's overtaking of Bain is also glossed over. There's a minor conflict, Neo is blinded, and Bain amounts to nothing. Reloaded ends with a dramatic shot of Bain implying that he is poised to cause some serious damage via infiltration of Zion's mainframe or at the very least reveal some sort of grander scheme based on his access to the real world, and it ultimately amounts to "I still hate you, Mr. Anderson, as much as I hate this rotten piece of meat". Not really a problem if they don't set this conflict up to play some major role in the third movie.

Is Neo being blinded integral to his ability to "see" the machines? What does this ability even offer? It seems to suggest some sort of spiritual awakening, an abstract sort of concept that has been literally alluded to via the "free your mind" motif, but in the context of the real world, it's just confusing. Is Neo "freeing his mind" in the real world? I thought his ability to manipulate the world around him only worked with matrix code?

Essentially there are only two possible explanations on this note: Neo is a machine, or the laws of physics can be transcended.
 

post #63 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by killtrocity View Post
 

When Neo realizes his sacrifice is inevitable, though, I have to wonder why he couldn't have let Smith overwrite him earlier. Did he have to "walk through the door himself" or "understand the choice he already made", and this realization had to occur on the path that the Oracle sent him on? Or did Deus ex Machina play some necessary role in removing Smith?

 

 

Yes, Neo needed to be connected to the Deus ex Machina in order to give it access to delete the Rogue Smith.

post #64 of 245

While the previous 2 didn't (and couldn't) live up to the bar set by the original, I've never understood the rabid hatred for them. So I don't care what the endless amount of detractors about to pour in here are going to predictably say... this excites me!

 

http://latino-review.com/2014/02/exclusive-que-que-que-new-matrix-trilogy-horizon/

post #65 of 245
I've been doing this for too long to take any "exclusive scoop" from Latino Review at face value, but I'd pay rapt attention if the Wachowskis were to say that they had a new story to tell in this franchise's world.
post #66 of 245

I'm indifferent to them.  I like the action sequences from Reloaded.  But I am so completely head over heels in love with the first one that just the slightest possibility of another movie like it in the near future gets me giddy.  I'd rather have another The Matrix than to see Episode 7 be amazing. 

post #67 of 245

Oh my God, what will CHUD do if FREEMAN AND SHAUN BECOME ALIGNED?!

post #68 of 245
I'd be more than happy to see coherently shot and edited action sequences again, even if it means rebooting The Matrix.
post #69 of 245

Yeah, not gonna lie...the possibility of more Matrix films from the W siblings is incredibly exciting.  Regardless of the lesser sequels, those films really pushed the envelope, and I'm sure they'd up the ante for any new stories.

 

But it'll be even more exciting to see how Sophia Stewart reacts.

post #70 of 245
If there's any filmmakers out there who would realize the need to learn from past mistakes and apply what they've learned it's these two. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't come really close to equaling the first Matrix, quality-wise, with any future ones..
post #71 of 245

You guys sound like the Star Wars thread right after Disney bought Lucasfilm.

 

In another page or two, we'll all be convinced new Matrix movies are the anti-Christ.

post #72 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

In another page or two, we'll all be convinced new Matrix movies are the anti-Christ.
The difference between "Wachowski's planning new trilogy" and "JJ Abrams planning new trilogy" will do wonders in the "giving it the benefit of the doubt" department..
post #73 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post
 

You guys sound like the Star Wars thread right after Disney bought Lucasfilm.

 

In another page or two, we'll all be convinced new Matrix movies are the anti-Christ.


We didn't flip from general optimism to negatude in that thread for no reason.  JJ scrapping a pro's script in favour of his own stuff is REASON for concern. 

post #74 of 245
Also, once JJ got attached it damaged a lot of peoples' optimism.
post #75 of 245
Hell...just give them Star Wars as well..
post #76 of 245

I don't know if it's been mentioned but it could be worse for both franchises....Michael Bay could be involved.

post #77 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 

The story I heard was that the Wachowskis actually wanted the machines to be using humans (or more specifically their brains) as giant computing parallel processors but that executives thought the audience wouldn't understand that and forced to make it that they were using humans as battery power, which of course no end of scientists have been debunking from the very beginning. I have no proof for this but I'm inclined to believe it as the problem with using humans as power was obvious from the outset (as well as so many obvious and better alternatives like nuclear, geothermal, wind, tide etc etc) and I'm sure they knew that from the start.

 

I just thought of this the other day while reading the end of The Difference Engine and thinking I couldn't be the first.  And then this pops up again.

 

It just makes so much more sense (or, I guess, has fewer problems and is also cooler.  I can imagine even clever machines over committing to a wildly inefficient system of power generation, but just coming to depend on it and having no real reason to reinvent the wheel short of catastrophe.  So it's not a deal breaker) .

This version has a certain amount more resonance with the rise of digital sweat shops too.

Maybe they can squeeze it in this time.

post #78 of 245

Here's the problem with a new Matrix trilogy -- the Matrix doesn't exist in a timeless fantasy realm like STAR WARS or LORD OF THE RINGS. The Matrix exists in a late 90's/early 2000's world where stuff like wire-fu, bullet-time, black leather n' bondage gear is edgy and cool. To bring a new version of the Matrix up to speed, you'd have to update all of the Wachowski's time-stamped fetishes into the modern day, thus stripping "The Matrix" of everything that gave it its original character. Basically you're just making a new sci fi virtual reality film and slapping the Martix brand on it, which will be a recipe for disappointment. 

post #79 of 245

I'm inclined to believe this rumor is true for a very simply reason.  All the W siblings' films after Revolutions have been bombs for the most part.  And they are running out of bargaining chips.  Jupiter Ascending is a toss up...could go either way, so I can imagine them handing WB treatments (not scripts) for new Matrix films as a backup in case JA fails.  If JA bombs, they could find themselves in director jail.  Also more Matrix films are guaranteed to make truckloads of money, regardless of quality, which will go a long way in buying them alot more breathing room to continue making heady genre bending films.  Hell, even if the rumor is false, they'd be idiots not to.  With the Matrix films they essentially had a Star Wars esque cash cow (essentially) which bought them their freedom...that freedom has run its course.

post #80 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
 

Here's the problem with a new Matrix trilogy -- the Matrix doesn't exist in a timeless fantasy realm like STAR WARS or LORD OF THE RINGS. The Matrix exists in a late 90's/early 2000's world where stuff like wire-fu, bullet-time, black leather n' bondage gear is edgy and cool. To bring a new version of the Matrix up to speed, you'd have to update all of the Wachowski's time-stamped fetishes into the modern day, thus stripping "The Matrix" of everything that gave it its original character. Basically you're just making a new sci fi virtual reality film and slapping the Martix brand on it, which will be a recipe for disappointment. 

 

I don't believe this is the case at all.  

 

The leather clad fetish exists even moreso now in the super hero comic book realm.  People are used to seeing acrobatic heroes in leather tights.  Wire fu still goes on I believe(?)...even if it doesn't, new Matrix films would bring the trend back, and the masses seem to love wire fu.  While the films themselves may be disappointing, they are about the closest you'll get to guaranteed box office outside of Star Wars, LOTR and Marvel flicks. 

post #81 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
 

Here's the problem with a new Matrix trilogy -- the Matrix doesn't exist in a timeless fantasy realm like STAR WARS or LORD OF THE RINGS. The Matrix exists in a late 90's/early 2000's world where stuff like wire-fu, bullet-time, black leather n' bondage gear is edgy and cool. To bring a new version of the Matrix up to speed, you'd have to update all of the Wachowski's time-stamped fetishes into the modern day, thus stripping "The Matrix" of everything that gave it its original character. Basically you're just making a new sci fi virtual reality film and slapping the Martix brand on it, which will be a recipe for disappointment. 

 

But wouldn't that be cool, in a way? Why should The Matrix not evolve after the Neo "debacle", from the POV of the machines? For instance, wouldn't it be interesting to see the machines yank the virtual reality construct to a future where humans "remember" the war with the machines and think that they've won?

post #82 of 245

I heard that the new Matrix is going to be running on Windows 8. According to an insider, there are a lot of scenes in which Neo runs around shouting "Where's the fucking button?!" whilst Morpheus mutters about how he never thought he'd feel nostalgic toward Vista.

post #83 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora Vampiris View Post
 

 

But wouldn't that be cool, in a way? Why should The Matrix not evolve after the Neo "debacle", from the POV of the machines? For instance, wouldn't it be interesting to see the machines yank the virtual reality construct to a future where humans "remember" the war with the machines and think that they've won?


Reminds me of Oblivion.  Just splice that movie in with the Matrix bits from the first Matrix and you've got a damn cool movie. 

post #84 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

Also more Matrix films are guaranteed to make truckloads of money, regardless of quality, which will go a long way in buying them alot more breathing room to continue making heady genre bending films.  Hell, even if the rumor is false, they'd be idiots not to.  With the Matrix films they essentially had a Star Wars esque cash cow (essentially) which bought them their freedom...that freedom has run its course.

 

 

Is it really a guarantee though? The movies made money sure but the third one was not that well received. Is the world really clamoring for more wire fu, bullet time, and half baked philosophy? 

post #85 of 245
but everyone is so old and puffy now...
post #86 of 245

And even if it does make money, is that really the best reason to revive this franchise? 

post #87 of 245
The use of the word 'franchise' says it all really...
post #88 of 245

I'm all for it if the Wachowskis have a great idea. But this sounds solely money motivated, if even true. The original MATRIX was a true game changer and I think generally as an artist you only get one of those, unless you're Kubrick. And as much as a niche group of people might try to convince you otherwise, SPEED RACER and CLOUD ATLAS are not game changers. 

post #89 of 245
I've never said either of those are game changers!!!
post #90 of 245

Hey, I said I wanted The Matrix 1.  A beautifully written, tight cool movie with great action and extremely cool concepts.  I don't want the bloated, poorly thought out pseudo philosophy and crappy anime feeling junk of the sequels. 

post #91 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

I'm inclined to believe this rumor is true for a very simply reason.  All the W siblings' films after Revolutions have been bombs for the most part.  And they are running out of bargaining chips.  Jupiter Ascending is a toss up...could go either way, so I can imagine them handing WB treatments (not scripts) for new Matrix films as a backup in case JA fails.  If JA bombs, they could find themselves in director jail.  Also more Matrix films are guaranteed to make truckloads of money, regardless of quality, which will go a long way in buying them alot more breathing room to continue making heady genre bending films.  Hell, even if the rumor is false, they'd be idiots not to.  With the Matrix films they essentially had a Star Wars esque cash cow (essentially) which bought them their freedom...that freedom has run its course.

 

This certainly feels like that doesn't it?  I'm on board with anything they do, but I do wish they would do smaller films like Bound.  This is playing it too safe for my book, I'm worried they aren't doing it for the right kind of reasons.  Kinda bums me out. 

post #92 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
 

I'm all for it if the Wachowskis have a great idea. But this sounds solely money motivated, if even true. The original MATRIX was a true game changer and I think generally as an artist you only get one of those, unless you're Kubrick. And as much as a niche group of people might try to convince you otherwise, SPEED RACER and CLOUD ATLAS are not game changers. 

I certainly won't say that about Cloud Atlas....

 

 

But damn straight Speed Racer was a game changer.

post #93 of 245

I loved Cloud Atlas. 

post #94 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

I loved Cloud Atlas. 

I like Cloud Atlas as well, though I'm definitely due for a second viewing.

post #95 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post
 

I certainly won't say that about Cloud Atlas....

 

 

But damn straight Speed Racer was a game changer.

 

No, it wasn't. SPEED RACER did nothing to change the landscape of cinema. There are not more movies like it. Kids don't play "Speed Racer" on the playground. It does not live on in any other media like comics or video games. The brand does not live on in any way, shape or form. It was a box office failure, a critical failure, and a failure on every level that failure can be objectively measured. You and a handful of very vocal defenders love the movie, and that is fine. But it is the opposite of a game changer. It was a game ender. 

post #96 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
 

 

No, it wasn't. SPEED RACER did nothing to change the landscape of cinema. There are not more movies like it. Kids don't play "Speed Racer" on the playground. It does not live on in any other media like comics or video games. It was a box office failure, a critical failure, and a failure on every level that failure can be objectively measured. You and a handful of very vocal defenders love the movie, and that is fine. But it is the opposite of a a game changer. It was a game ender. 

Jesus aren't you a joyless individual.

 

Have a cookie.

post #97 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post
 

Jesus aren't you a joyless individual.

 

Have a cookie.

 

Tearing down the cult of SPEED RACER is my joy, and the sweet taste of its failure is my cookie. 

post #98 of 245
No lie. I am actually glad Speed Racer bombed.

I get a movie I love without it being diluted by everything that comes with being a success.

It was no game changer. And that is a good thing. It can remain its own pure work.
post #99 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

 

No, it wasn't. SPEED RACER did nothing to change the landscape of cinema. There are not more movies like it. Kids don't play "Speed Racer" on the playground. It does not live on in any other media like comics or video games. The brand does not live on in any way, shape or form. It was a box office failure, a critical failure, and a failure on every level that failure can be objectively measured. You and a handful of very vocal defenders love the movie, and that is fine. But it is the opposite of a game changer. It was a game ender. 

 

I want to bathe my naked body in this post.

post #100 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

Tearing down the cult of SPEED RACER is my joy, and the sweet taste of its failure is my cookie. 

Let's share in this bounty!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Time for a new Matrix discussion