Re-Generating The Matrix Saga - Page 2

Working a job with a flexible schedule is great.

I know pretentious cuntbucket's a 7 day a week gig, but don't take it out on me, or this thread.

Sniffle sniffle sob.

It doesn't change the fact that you spent a Friday watching all three Matrix films back-to-back. Your hand must have felt terribly neglected.

So apparently, the fact that someone else has more time to watch movies than you do is terribly offensive to you. Here's some advice: get over it. And then head over to the AICN talkbacks. They probably miss you over there. In the meantime, though, how about not derailing threads with your bullshit?

Crow is intelligent, and good people...you're not. Don't drag this out, just leave. 73 posts is far more than we should have to endure from you. You registered on a message board for film discussion to insult anonymous people from the safety of your computer. Who's the pathetic one?

It doesn't behoove these films that Keanue is such a dead weight. Fishburne is hammy than a pig farm. My problem was the the concept of the "the Matrix" was too limiting with all the cyber-punk crap.
For me, it would have been far more interesting that every time a character "plugged in", the cyber world was different. One time it would be; the wild west, ancient Rome, WWII and Nazis, the civil war. To me, the cyber punk stuff was hitting one note.
That said I can look past all that and enjoy them for the excellent eye candy.

Very well put Crow. It's peoples natural inclination to think of war in terms of "winners" and "losers" that I think the Wachowski's were attempting to deconstruct in ending the series with peace with the machines for humanity rather than victory over them (along with the massively multi-layered myriad aspects of everything else they tried to do within the framework of a film trilogy). This is exactly why Second Renaissance Parts 1 & 2 are essential viewing and why Ive not watched the series without them being viewed between the original chapter and reloaded since purchasing the box set (I can't watch them one film at a time, I watch one and I have to indulge in all 6 hours these days, which is why I probably only get to watch them about once a year).

You're meant to see the machines as simply another form of sentient life that humans refused to share the planet with and got utterly bitch-slapped for. Humanity deserved much of what ti got in the series and the machines really weren't the bad guys - they were simply responding to hyumanity feeling so threatened they tried to exterminate them.

The machines are in no way meant to be seen as "villains" in any sense - in fact in many ways, the film doesnt really have villains - I think this, along with the lack of any sense of victory at the wars conclusion, goes to the heart of why so many people felt let down by the end of the series while I felt completely exhilirated that such a massive blockbuster series could have such a left-field non-mainstream ending.

I'm a huge Matrix fan - love the first, enjoy the sequels. I agree with the above comments from some...had they made one sequel and not two, we would have a couple of kick butt Matrix movies - the weight of a trilogy held it down, though Revolutions and Reloaded each have some very cool stuff in both.

Ancillary projects should add extra enjoyment, not be required for enjoying a film. It was the same thing when Reloaded came out and everyone was saying you had to read all these philosophy texts to get it. A film should stand and fall on its own merits. If Animatrix gave you a deeper appreciation, great, but to say you have to see it before going into the sequels, that I don't buy.

I don't get this logic, the films can still be enjoyed without the two installments of The Second Renaissance - but yes they certainly help in contextualising certainly the ending of the saga.

That said, it's not like the Wachowskis hid this fact under a bushel - they happily said that certain episodes in the animatrix - like seond renaissance or final flight of the osiris - enhanced the story and added to its overall story - just like the game Enter the Matrix enhanced the story of anciliary characters in the series like Niobe and Ghost - they were actually going out of their way to make a multi-layered, multi-sub-texted, multi-media epic.

Richard, Im a prety big fan of much of your postings here even when I don't completely gree with them and think your description of Spidey3 is the best positive-spin sum-up of the film Ive read so far, but just becaus you don't "buy" what the wachowskis were selling doesn't negate what they were attempting. Not only were they trying to tell a story that resonated with pop-culture, philosophy and religion - they were trying to tell this multi-layered saga within the context of many of the media forms that had inspired them and were available for them to use.

You may not dig where they were coming from but it stuns me that so many people don't even seem to give them props for what they were obviously attempting.

Nothing this grand has come even close to being attempted on this scale in text - and especially in mainstream blockbuster film-making - before - and with the response this recieved I doubt something on this scae will be attempted again in the mainstream again maybe even in my lifetime.

You're damn right it shouldn't be attempted - people should be able to plunk down eight bucks for a movie and get a complete product, instead of one piece of a larger and infinitely more expensive puzzle. You don't make a narrative film that's reliant on spending yet more money for the ancillaries in order for it to truly work. It's a cheap, carny, money-making scam.

I guess it depends on whether or not you buy that the ANIMATRIX wasn't principally intended as a cash-in. Answer me this: if the Wachowskis thought that the The Second Renaissance was essential viewing for the MATRIX experience, why didn't they put each half before the two sequels' theatrical releases? They could've still released them on DVD.

It's obviously not essential. The theatrical movies stand (or fall, depending on your opinion) on their own strengths. I view the Animatrix kind of like the illustrated maps and appendixes that bookend the Lord of the Rings (not that I'm comparing the two in quality): they expand upon the world, but aren't integral to the core work. That being said, I enjoyed the Animatrix a hell of a lot more than I did the actual films, so I don't think it's an unwarranted cost.

I don't suppose anyone actually read that part where i say that Second Renaissance is part of what made ME like the sequels, and not at all the be-all, end-all solution to the films' myriad issues?

The sequels should, and can stand on their own, but the story told in Second Renaissance adds a complexity to the human/machine conflict that DOES change things going into the sequels. It's optional, but, I feel, important.

As far as the cash in value, sure, there's undoubtedly the fact that putting everything into separate mediums just allows more money to flow in from various directions, but that also has zero impact on the quality of those products or the intent behind telling these stories at all. And you don't get the kind of talent that was involved in the Animatrix project unless your passion for the medium is strong, and you're dead serious about telling your story as best as it can be told through it.

I love these films. Revolutions especially. But it takes work. It takes watching Animatrix, reading up on the Wachowski's inspirations, and re-watching the films over and over. There's even clues to these films in the goddamn scores, for crying out loud. It's not an easily accessible trilogy by any stretch. It's pretty much pad-locked, for most. To really "get it" takes work. At least for me.

Those who take the time to involve themselves in these films get rewarded. Big time. I've introduced these films to people who hated them before. When I gave them a play-by-play of the movie and what the whole thing was about, they ended up loving it. The story works. The characters work. The messages work. It WORKS.

But who wants to take the time? The Brothers Wachowski didn't make it easy. They didn't give us anything to follow save for our own intuition, really. When you pay 8 bucks to be entertained at the theater, you aren't thinking in the back of your mind "I can't wait to REALLY love these movies on DVD" or "I can't wait to buy the animated DVD so I can understand this movie in the movie theater". Seriously, that was pretty hard to swallow in 2003. You want to love the film and be entertained in the theater. That's not going to happen with the Matrix Trilogy. These are DVD movies. Meant for at-home viewing, again and again.

So did the brothers stiff us? Well, I guess the better question is how could they have accomplished everything within the two sequels themselves. After recently watching the cluster-fuck Spider-Man 3, I grow weary of too many ideas and plots in one film. That film was shit.

I'm proud that Warners let the bros finish this thing their way. We don't see major studios make movies like these. Thinking long-term, the brothers win, because their story is out there, readily available, the way they wanted it. However, in some ways, I side with Richard. I love these films now, but I was pretty damn angry when I walked out of Revolutions on first viewing. I remember that very well.

But now it's my favorite trilogy hands-down. In every way. Go figure. I just hope they don't make a 4th film. It's perfect as is.

I feel like there's a certain amount of arrogance in the idea that you expect your viewers to jump through hoops and "do the homework" in order to fully appreciate your work. And I felt that arrogance coming off the screen. There was an attitude that said "If you don't get it, fuck you". I get enough hostility in real life.

I agree. The lack of explanation certainly comes off arrogant to many. I don't disagree with that at all.

I think the difference in "doing the homework" rests in the fact that there is some reward at the end of the tunnel; that the films do make sense and the story is phenomenal in hindsight. But you have to want it. Not many people do. There's no motivating factor, other than an intuitive interest to invest yourself in the story. And maybe that's the biggest problem. The Wachowski Bros. couldn't generate a deep enough interest in the sequels to garner what many felt with the first film. In some ways, they coast on the "wow factor" of the first film to lead you into the overwhelming philosophy of the sequels. It never bothered me, but I think a lot of fans were expecting the same "blown away" feeling they experienced in the first film.

I don't mind a work demanding some effort in order to be fully enjoyed. I generally prefer that to mindless pandering. I guess it really depends on what is being attempted. The religious imagery in the Matrix trilogy is pretty far beyond the religious imagery in Spiderman 2 - I don't mind either one, but Spiderman doesn't really make any demands with it's imagery (Oh look! Spiderman is like Jesus! wait . . .what?) and so it doesn't really mean much. At least in my opinion.

Too much talking in Reloaded, too little depth in Revolutions: it's not too hard to figure out where the problem lies. Basically they should never have split them up.

Fuse them up together again. Cut half the talking, put the Animatrix in the middle of that movie, leave out the techno dance scene and you maybe have a decent flick. Then again it keeps Zion outthere wich was the most boringly imagined futuristic human city ever conceived. At the end of The Matrix I could not wait to see what the fabled human city was like. After the sequels I could not wait to not see anything that was related to it ever again.

I've long been of the opinion that the Zion rave would work by simply replacing the godawful score.

I think it's a pretty silly comparison to make. I also think it's pretty silly to equate "buying extra appendages to the film" with "work demanding some effort in order to be fully enjoyed". Cinema is quite capable of being provocative, multilayered, and just damn hard work to grapple with all by its lonesome. That's my issue. I have no qualms about engaging with a piece of cinema on levels not normally asked of an audience - DOGVILLE springs to mind - but when you're creating a movie, the fullest experience of it shouldn't be reliant on shelling out more cash for its tie-ins. With the MATRIX sequels, that seems to be the case.

Actually, I completely forgot: Second Renaissance 1 & 2 were (and still are) free downloads from the official Animatrix site.

What's your take on it if the expanded experience doesn't cost a dime?

You're telling me all this information was so important there was nothing that couldn't have been cut from the over four-hour running time of the two sequels to include it?

There's plenty of stuff that could've been cut from both films, but plotwise, there's nowhere this information could've been stuck in that wouldn't have stopped either film dead. It's a fault of the story the Wachowskis ended up telling on screen, for sure, but it's a fact, nonetheless.

Not to mention, do you have any idea how much it would've cost to do those two segments, in full, in live-action? If anything, i agree with whoever mentioned putting the segments before the films when they were in theaters.

It should never have been 2 movies AND most of 3 is just bleh. The subversive battle against the system from the first movie turned into the standard crosscutting- end-of-trilogy fighting, followed by a victory. I think I was hoping for a bleak, 70s Planet of the Apes/Parallax View type ending. Agent Smith takes over the world. The movie ends with Smith having sex with himself, getting married to himself, etc.

You are right. I think the Wachowski Brothers are full of shit in terms of claiming that they envisioned it as a trilogy from the get-go. No they didn't. The first one has a clear cut ending with Neo pretty much stopping the Matrix and waking everyone up. Done. Period. The End.

I don't have a problem with them realizing that they scored with the first film and decided to craft one mondo sequel to it that was split in two. That's fine. Just don't try and force feed me bullshit about how they always intended to do that. The creators of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl didn't try that when it was announced that Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were on the way. They just stated that they didn't expect it to be the runaway hit that it was and thought it would be fun and pleasing for the fans for them to craft some sequels (one again a giant movie split into two parts, like the Matrix). They didn't sit around coming up with excuses about how they had a secret outline for two more movies in the event that the first one made bank.

I do enjoy the Matrix sequels though, preferring the third one to the second. They aren't as good as the first one, but they are still solid efforts nonetheless.

I would suggest replacing it with Yackety Sax and speeding up the film. That would certainly make it more bearable.

Back To The Future was the same story. To this day, though, there are people who swear that they saw the words "To Be Continued" on the first movie in its original theatrical run, even though they were added on home video, after the sequels were announced.

But BTTF did have the ending directly setting up sequel in the future in the original run, yes?

Well I think the first drafts of their screenplay have various plot elements that ended up being omitted from The Matrix and appear later in the sequels so they're not completely full of shit. Also going from vague memory of Matrix Revisited, I dont think they specifically said they envisioned it as a trilogy but that their initial pitch to Silver and co was a bigger story, but they were told to scale it down and if The Matrix was successful, they could continue the story.

About this debate of Matrix content outside of the movies, honestly you dont need to consume any of it it to 'get' the trilogy, there arent any instances where when you watch the trilogy again you'll go "oh so thats why he, or she, did this, or that", but it provides some relevent context and extra food for thought.

The Wachowskis are comic book and anime geeks, so why criticise them for indulging in these mediums to expand the Matrix universe? Its not new for a franchise to make use of multiple mediums, but what was exciting about The Matrix was how it successfully, and in one fell swoop, integrated various visual forms of storytelling into the trilogy in 2003. As both prequel with a few Animatrix episodes and comics, and as sidestory with Enter the Matrix game, and of course post-trilogy, again with anime, comics and the online MMORPG. It has paved the way for such things like prequel episodes to 24, BSG webisodes, the Lost Experience, etc. So I dont think the point was to 'explain' the trilogy to people. Morpheus's concise explanation of how the war started in The Matrix is enough, but watching the trilogy with the 2nd Rennaisance in mind gives you the context to approach the film from another angle.

The trilogy, not just the first film, made a powerful impact on cinema, made a subtle impact on our culture and influenced so many people, but its dismissed derisively so much its kind of sad really.

The Renaissances movies are pretty hard to criticize. Evidently they were available for free; they offer a narrative element that would have been impossible with the main films (being animated); they are self-contained.

If Peter Jackson offered a super-deluxo edition of the Fellowship of the Ring with an exclusive Tom Bombadil sequence, I don't think most of use would be complaining.

According to Gale and Zemeckis, that was not a setup for a sequel. They really just intended it as a sort of "...and they went on to other adventures" sort of ending. They didn't know a sequel would be feasible. In fact, in the audio commentaries for the box set, Zemeckis says that if he had known a sequel was coming, he would have left Jennifer out of it, because having to include her in Part II was just a pain in the ass.

I would. I fully supported his decision to oust that section of the story. It's a pointless diversion, like most of the elements he 86'd. That's what makes Peter Jackson a better filmmaker than the Wachowskis. He knows what isn't going to work. Or he did, until King Kong.

Right, I didn't really think they had sequels mapped out and ready. I was just pointing out that their conclusion left room for them in a way the original Matrix didn't.

I think the end of the Matrix left plenty of room for sequels. I just didn't like the ones we got.

That's CHUD. Heyo!

No, seriously, look around this place.

When Matrix One came out, it was new and fresh to a certain extent. I watched it twice within a matter of days to better comprehend it. It had small messages in which I picked up on.

Matrix Two was decent, though it made money. I couldn't admire it. The Keymaker was an interesting character though.

Matrix Three was slow, but I preferred it over two. I found it to be very poetic. The death of Trinity and Neo. Also, how the machines took Neo's body away. So, can Neo really be dead? And how The Oracle and The Architect were talking at the end. Very poetic in many ways for me.

All in all, the movies spoke something to me: It's about an awakening.

Thank you J.M. PRATER, I think I shall visit The Matrix and see what comes of it, as I search for revelations and revolutions within myself.

I don't understand how people can blame the Wachowskis for making some of the creative choices they made given the way the studio system works. I don't think WB would have appreciated the idea of including 6 minute anime shorts before a slam-dunk breadwinner like Reloaded. And if it's quiet release 6months later is any indication, they didn't care enough about Revolutions to bother.

I'm a recovering Matrix superfan. I think there's definitely a host of flaws, especially in the sequels. However, the way they are dismissed is hilarious to me.

The funniest part is all the complaints about the philosophical elements. People hereabout have obviously read a few mainstream critics' reviews of the sequels because I've already seen the phrases "pseudo-philosophy" and "bullshit philosophy" casually tossed about.

And if the letter the bros wrote to companion the big-assed boxed set is any indication, they think it's funny too.

I'm glad you and they are amused. It doesn't change the fact that they failed their core audience. Laugh it up, guys.

The general contempt and ignorant dismissal of those elements is the source of the amusement.

And I'm pretty sure the Wachowski Brothers have their own ideas about who their core audience is and whether they succeeded or failed in whatever it is they tried to do. I won't comment on whether the Matrix Trilogy is a success or a failure or who pissed on who's cornflakes.

All I know is that, as a Philosophy major, there's a lot of funny.

So, as a Philosophy major, could you point me to any moment in the Matrix trilogy which expanded upon the elements they brought up. A lot of the philosophical elements seemed more like name dropping than anything else, vague usage to try and convey a missing understanding.

It doesn't matter how well it succeeds as a piece of philosophical examination. As a piece of cinematic drama, it fails. You and the Wachowskis can chuckle yourselves sick.

I don't really get all this talk about philosophy in regards to the Matrix trilogy. Whatever is said about the philosophical debates written into the script of the sequels, it doesn't cover up that those two movies are not good movies.

I own a copy of the first one and I watched it recently after not having seen it for a few years. I really enjoyed it - it's a worthwhile movie. I then found myself thinking about the sequels, and I couldn't remember shit about them, and I even went to the theater twice to see the second one. I find this happens with bad movies - there's nothing remarkable about them, and at times they are painful to watch, so you just allow them to leave.

Since my memory was shit, I went and looked around on the internet to read about the sequels, trying to refresh my memory. I couldn't believe I had completely forgotten about all of the matrix within a matrix shit, and the debates about who is the creator of the matrix, the Oracle or Persephone or the Architect, or whether the Merovingian was a previous One... I forgot about all that shit. All the philosophical stuff totally bogged those films down. It's like they decided to put the philosophy stuff at the center of their efforts, and they just phoned it in on things like a tight story arc with passing character development, good action pieces (aside from the car chase, the one thing I remember about those movies), ie all the things that made the first one so good. They basically didn't do what made the first one great, and they failed at it.

My first post, to be clear, didn't really comment on the quality of the films.

I only mentioned that I think it's funny when people turn up their noses at the philosophical elements of the trilogy and say things like "pseudo-philosophy", "bullshit philosophy", "philosophy 101", "pop-philosophy" when talking about that element.

Those remarks are just really funny. Especially since the trilogy indirectly refers to several key philosophers beyond the obvious ones (Plato/Socrates for instance, everybody gets that). Examples include Hegel, Descartes, and probably some from Decision and Choice Theory wherein I've not yet ventured.

One example, Spike, of an "expanded" of philosophy within the trilogy is how the conflict (man vs. machine) throughout is basically a Hegellian Dialectic (so called thesis, antithesis, synthesis... and here on several levels). And that's something that's hard to read unless you know a bit about Hegel (I'm no expert). The way the movie is woven around that is awesome. But I think people make a mistake if they think that the Wachowskis were necessarily trying to create their own unique philosophy through The Matrix Trilogy and so are disappointed that there's only reference.

By the way, I haven't listened to the Philosophers' Commentary tracks on the discs yet. Just got the set and have only done the Critics' one.

Anyway.

I don't care whether people like the movies or not or whether they think they're good. I like them, warts and all. And that's all I have to say about it no matter how many times Greg David wants to repeat himself.

But I like repeating myself. It makes me sound like I'm sure of what I'm saying.

That's all well and good, but those of us who don't give a shit about the philosophical noodlings of the Wachowskis weren't talking about that.

They're dismissed because they're poorly acted, with bad dialogue, often impenetrable jargon and occasional ropey effects. As quality narrative cinema, the sequels are failures. Maybe if the Wachowskis wanted people to pay more attention to their intellectual musings, they should've taken a little more care over their craft.

Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not.

I will admit that I think that, even if you believe the sequels weren't all that great, there's still quite a lot to like.

You see people referring to all kinds of little things that might be awesome in a movie that isn't so much. You never see those kind of references to the Matrix sequels because they get dismissed as if they're offensive on a deeper level than being "bad movies".

Often, "the philosophy" is referred to derisively. Which is funny to me. Sorry!

But why is it you guys seem so bent on convincing me these movies are bad and that I shouldn't like them (or see them as "good" at least)? I'm trying to respectfully keep out of that side of the Great Matrix Debate.

One thing I've always enjoyed about the end of trilogy is how they're willing to kill off the hero, the villain, and the hero's girl - how many franchises do that? At least they decided to play for keeps with the characters at the very end - I'll give them credit for that.

I just wish they'd killed her... you know... a bit faster. I mean, really! Four or five rebars to the chest and abdomen - we're talking Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers, coughing up blood, "ackackIloveyouJohnnyohgodbleeaaauuurrgh /dead", not a 5-minute "Let me count the ways...".

If there was a fan edit of the two sequels combined together, Neo would gather himself after the crash and call to Trinity, who doesn't respond because she's already dead. He was sitting with her through the whole thing and he can't even say goodbye to her. Wouldn't that be more tragic? Wouldn't Neo's fearless encounter with Robot Babyface resonate more?

Fuck hammy pre-death soliloquies.

Agreed. I'd have been fine with that scenario. Her last utterance could have been when she saw the real sun for the first and only time - it would give that moment a little more resonance as well. And after all, what did she say in that scene that hadn't already been said or still needed to be said?

Well, when you turn one plot into two movies, you need to pad the bitch out a little. Five minute death scene? Why not?