Greatoneshere

People change, their parents died, that's why Lilly said she didn't want to do it. If you've seen their alternate ending in the game The Matrix: Path of Neo they have already trolled their own franchise before. They've transitioned since they made the trilogy. The projects they've chosen to make since the trilogy also indicate changes to their filmmaking being made. I don't know what to tell you, don't believe it if you don't want, but I've provided the reasons how it could be deliberate, especially given the messaging in the movie itself. And I don't believe they're trying to replicate the success of the first Matrix. Speed Racer, Cloud Atlas, and Sense8 don't really scream trying to replicate the same success in terms of project choices. I'm not saying Lana Wachowski made a deliberately bad movie, she made a deliberate choice with Resurrections to make a point of de-glamorizing the action and violence by barely caring about a) putting action the movie (there isn't a lot) and b) not getting Yuen Woo-Ping or the John Wick stunt team or anyone to make the action scenes good. Not sure how you interpret all that but I interpret it as someone who doesn't particularly care about indulging the audience for what the Matrix had been known for. The movie comments on the original trilogy constantly, clearly indicating how Lana Wachowski feels about the original films, especially with the co-workers at the computer game company giving reasons as to "what makes The Matrix the Matrix". I'm not going to get into another debate after years of doing so with people over the quality of the Matrix sequels - it has fans (like me), and lots of people who don't like them (like you). They are divisive films that people are still debating to this day and I think that staying power says something and that's enough for me. And yes, I believe the Wachowski's are very torn in real life about wanting to protect their property and letting it go for others to potentially twist/ruin. The Wachowski's have made it clear time and time again in their work they hate power and authority, in Speed Racer the scene with the villain about stocks vs. Speed's love of racing says it all. That entire film could be about filmmaking, just replace the racing. So yes, it is strange and I imagine they are torn about it. And my point about The Last Jedi and The Last of Us Part 2 is the same as you're saying, Resurrections subverted expectations by not being a traditional Matrix sequel in the same way that audiences reacted strongly/poorly to that in the same way that they reacted strongly/poorly to the subverted aspects of The Last Jedi and TLOU2. Saying they are well made and well crafted and Resurrections is not is simply you endorsing the subverting audience expectations in the latter two examples but not the former, which is fine but at that point liking or not liking the subversion is gonna be person to person specific. I didn't love but I did like the subversions in Resurrections, well crafted or not. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I'm comparing it to Marvel/DC in terms of I'd want more blockbuster films trying to be more rather than blockbuster films that aren't even good at what they are trying to be (as you said, popcorn entertainment). If your movie is going to fail, fail big I say. Resurrections isn't a great movie but at least it's swinging for the fences. You call it "pretentious" and that it "pretends" to be deeper than it is but not sure how it's pretending anything, the movie is straight forward. Over the years you've indicated this inherent distaste for certain kinds of art house or indie cinema (you called Alan Wake II pretentious in a negative way as well) and I think that says more about you than it does the film. I can agree with people saying it feels longer but why is it uncomfortable to sit through? It's a rave party and a sex scene? Seems normal.

Sure, I'm just saying you can't automatically presume it would be like 7R's combat specifically. As I said, it certainly could, but it's not a given. And again, as others have pointed out, FF6 would work well in FF7R's combat system theoretically.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the purpose is arguably unneeded in this movie, but there are plenty of (bad) movies with actually purposeless scenes so my only point was that by comparison the Wachowskis were at least trying to actually do something with that scene, successful or not. Again, it's less than 5 minutes long, but people clearly had a problem with the scene. I never thought about it one way or another until audiences en masse came out complaining about it to the point an SNL skit was made to make fun of it. I think there are other issues with the sequels to focus on by comparison if one wanted to that are more endemic to the issues with the films. I still really enjoy them, even with their issues.

That's sort of the point of its function (to stop the movie), and it obviously serves a purpose (celebrating humanity), whether it succeeds in either seems to be that no, it doesn't.

There's no reason to assume an FF6 remake would adopt the same combat system as the FF7 remake. It could, but I don't think that's a given. Either way an FF6 remake probably isn't happening.

There are parts about the sequels I obviously don't like, but the rave scene doesn't bother me. Most criticisms people make about the sequels are so basic. "The rave scene was bad or went on too long". There's an argument it went on too long but bad? It's fine, it's a fun scene and a break from the action and plot that's going to start barreling forward for two movies. People are like: "the CG is iffy" at times. A movie isn't bad because of some ground-breaking (at the time) iffy CG and one random rave scene interspersed with a sex scene between Trinity and Neo. A movie is bad because of bad plot ideas, too much exposition, poor dialogue, not enough character work, etc. Long rave scene and iffy CG are just superficial criticisms. To me, the sequels are two incredibly entertaining movies with a very intrinsic and unique sci-fi world that's a lot of fun to play in. The original is untouchable, but the first two sequels remain beautifully shot, with incredible action scenes, with wide shots that stay and hold so you can see everything, there's a lot of beautiful formalism on display. Revolutions also ends with a really nice message about not just wiping each other out, which is very different from typical one side has to lose type of endings. Having lengthy, hard to parse scenes like with the Architect aren't forgotten when so many movies are forgettable. So for better and worse the sequels remain remembered even though so many people seem to dislike them. Staying power says a lot about a film, good or bad. There is still nothing quite like the original Matrix trilogy movies, in sci-fi or action. Again, people were saying they "liked" and "enjoyed" The Marvels and Dial of Destiny recently in their respective threads, two movies that will be forgotten in another year yet we dislike the Matrix sequels, films still being discussed and dissected and criticized 21 years later? Yeah, I'm thinking we all liked (or so strongly disliked) the Matrix sequels than the forgettable aforementioned movies. A strong reaction to a movie, good or bad, actually says more (in a good way) about the film than action movie #4503 that is mediocre and forgotten but was liked "in the moment". Edit: what's particularly amusing to me is if you check the film itself, the rave scene lasts 4.5 minutes, and its intercut with Trinity and Neo having sex, and the scene chapter is titled "celebrating humanity". Even if you hate the intercut scene, it's 4.5 minutes long in a 2 hour and 20 minute long film and people are still complaining about it.

It seems pretty deliberate (from what I can tell), which is an incredibly off beat and interesting choice but will obviously bother audiences. I liked the sequels personally, but I do understand they are divisive films. It's somewhat in the same way that audiences just inherently reacted negatively to The Last Jedi and The Last of Us: Part II, which are also two things one could argue said "fuck you" to the audience to make bigger thematic points about itself and the medium of storytelling. People want films like Top Gun: Maverick out of their legacy sequels, not things like The Last Jedi and The Matrix Resurrections which upend tropes, comment on things metafictionally, and don't seem interested in giving the fans what they simply want. Whether that works for audiences or not will be up to each individual person in such cases. But I'd take a million movies trying to be different like Resurrections than pretty much anything Marvel and DC have been putting out for years now.

Often style can make up for a lot if it can provide a visceral experience, that's what it was for me with Joker. Style can be substance from time to time I think. It's a very engaging movie on certain levels. A heavily stylized, edgelord version of The King of Comedy actually sounds pretty great as a Joker movie to me.

You should just blame awards for being meaningless in the first place and frequently getting it wrong. Bohemian Rhapsody won an Oscar for best film editing despite the editor agreeing to being made fun of for having such bad editing in that film with scenes like this and yet it won best editing. Bohemian Rhapsody Editor Knows His Work Was Bad Despite Oscar Win WWW.ESQUIRE.COM If you've seen the movie, you know the one. “Whenever I see it, I want to put a bag over my head,” the editor said recently.

The action scenes being so-so was, I felt, intentional on the part of Lana Wachowski. Since Cloud Atlas, and particularly if one has seen Sense8, it's clear to me that the Wachowskis no longer care about action and in fact don't like it and intentionally don't put it in their work anymore. I believe they don't want to glorify action in cinema anymore, seeing it as a bad thing and a bad message to viewers (in the same way Neil Gaiman doesn't really do action in his work either because it's lazy/bad writing and not a good message to send). I believe they've gotten even more pacifist as they've gotten older. I mean, Lana Wachowski could have hired Yuen Woo-Ping and his team again for the action just like she did for the original trilogy and she intentionally didn't. As I said in my first post in this thread, The Matrix Resurrections is a super interesting movie to me. I like it, despite it not being very rewatchable (because of the lack of good action, etc.) but that movie was a giant, intentional fuck you to both movie studios (WB in particular) and audiences who just wanted another fan service laden legacy sequel like Hollywood has been pumping out and Lana Wachowski was like: "fuck that" and made a movie with so-so action that seemed to barely care about the action despite being a Matrix movie. The Wachowski's have only gotten more arthouse since The Matrix trilogy and in no world do they want to play that studio game of Tron: Legacy and Top Gun: Maverick, etc. They didn't want to make a fourth movie, they only did it because WB told them they were going to make one with or without them, so Lana Wachowski stepped in to protect the integrity of their previous works by remaining in control and she made a movie that, to me, intentionally was trying to kill the franchise so they wouldn't make anymore. Her sister Lilly Wachowski was working on a show but basically refused to do the movie for this very reason that they didn't want Matrix revived. Rumor was that when the film stopped midway during production due to Covid hitting that Lana Wachowski was just going to not finish the film so it would never be made and it took the cast and crew telling her to please finish it for her to do so. The so-so action scenes are a product of all of this. I mean, the movie hilariously has a scene introducing the names of three new sentient robot characters that have switched to the human side in the intervening 60 years since the truce was established and it's such a "Hollywood blockbuster movie moment" of a scene "introducing new characters who are part of this new crew" and then they are only seen from that point on and never developed further or voiced again. It's stuff like this that shows that Lana Wachowski didn't want to make some traditional sequel. Yet here we are.

Shallow or not, it's got incredible style, an excellent lead performance, and it's incredibly entertaining. People always criticize the movie for acting deeper or seeming deeper than it is, but that's just one aspect to a whole movie for me. There is plenty else to focus on and be thrilled by in that movie than a fairly direct and simple screed about how largely amoral and apathetic society is, especially to its most vulnerable people. The chilling sequence where he's about to step out onto the talk show stage and dances I felt was worth the price of admission alone. People enjoyed The Marvels and Dial of Destiny in their respective threads. This, to me, is far more entertaining and rewatchable than those.

I said "mostly good" shows specifically because Resident Evil (and a few others) were on the list. The point was big budget shows, not necessarily good ones so there was no admitting of it being good.

Like I said, I agree with you, I'm just explaining that the perception is there and why it's there, I'm not debating the veracity of the perception. And to be fair, Fox was kind of the Netflix of its time in terms of cancelling beloved early cult shows.

I actually really liked the first movie and I think it's even better in retrospect as an Elseworlds Joker story, aka Taxi Driver but with the Joker. It's completely different than everything we've been getting in the comic book movie space and we need more of that, not less.

I think the point is they cancel these cult following shows after just one or two seasons (I wouldn't call that "having multiple years of seasons"), as opposed to more seasons at other networks who do ultimately cancel these kinds of shows too, but let them live a little longer I think is the perception. It's actually a pretty big list, I just pulled the big name shows from the IMDb list, there are many more. Perhaps CBS and other platforms cancel these many cult shows after just one or two seasons too, but I've never gotten that sense before, not like with Netflix. It's what is being cut or cancelled, not how much.

Clearly WB didn't learn from Lana Wachowski making The Matrix Resurrections, a movie that basically told WB to fuck off, stop making Matrix movies, and told the audience to fuck off, stop asking for more of the same fan service heavy legacy sequels and make new stuff. I'm shocked that after the horrific experience of forcing herself to make Resurrections for WB to protect her and her sister's IP (shooting around Covid no less) that Lana Wachowski is executive producing this (perhaps in name only). But, no lessons were learned, and here we are. I hope it's good regardless, Drew Goddard is pretty legit, he wrote Cloverfield and adapted The Martian and wrote and directed The Cabin in the Woods and Bad Times at the El Royale. Guess we'll see if this is a reboot or part of the previous canon.

I think when people think of "big budget", they think of sci-fi and fantasy shows (big genre shows) or shows that come off as prestige TV. Shows like Sense8, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance, The OA, 1899, The Midnight Club, Warrior Nun, The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Glow, Santa Clarita Diet, Resident Evil, Cowboy Bebop, Altered Carbon, Space Force, Mindhunter, Tuca & Bertie, Marco Polo, The Get Down, Uncoupled, American Vandal, The Brothers Sun and Shadow and Bone, just to name some of the big ones (hell, The Sandman almost didn't get renewed for its second season). All of these shows were cancelled after one or two seasons (except Glow, whose final season was cancelled, season 4) despite each having, at the time, strong but probably small cult followings compared to a lot of shittier/cheaper Netflix stuff that lasts, hence the perception. I know a lot of people around here, including myself, liked a lot of these shows (I wish Sense8, The OA, Mindhunter, and some others had lasted longer) so to me that's a strong list of mostly good shows that felt like they got unceremoniously cancelled before they could get any real momentum, which they showed real promise of. That's a big list, I'm not sure it's that exaggerated but at the same time all platforms cut some big shows people love every year. They just seem to last a few seasons longer than what Netflix allows. It's not a hill I care about dying on, but it's not crazy to be skeptical of Netflix either. In 3 Body Problem's case, it's a trilogy of books and that's it so I imagine Netflix is probably all in on adapting all three books into three seasons of TV. Cancelled Netflix Series - IMDb WWW.IMDB.COM Cancelled Netflix Series Every Show Canceled by Netflix in 2023 VARIETY.COM From 'Shadow and Bone' to 'Sex/Life,' here is every show Netflix canceled in 2023. Netflix Has Created A Self-Fulfilling Cancelation Loop With Its New Shows FORBES.COM A couple weeks ago, I remarked that Netflix now felt like it was “actively stealing time from me.” I can almost not even remember which cancelation I was talking about at the time, given that there have been so many, but I believe it was 1899

I'm not sure why people think Square Enix will ever remake FF6 when producer Yoshinori Kitase recently came out and said it would take twice as long as FF7's remake trilogy, which he said took 10 years, meaning an FF6 remake would take them 20 years, according to him (not sure where he's getting 10 years, it's longer since episode 3 is still not out and the trilogy entered production in late 2015). While many employees at the company want to do an FF6 remake apparently, if he thinks it would take 20 years I don't see it happening and he just said this in January. A lot of people are thinking an FF9 remake is next, which is fine I guess. I would have loved an FF8 one, as that is my favorite one (after FF12). Remember, Square Enix recently came out saying it was looking to scale back the amount of projects they greenlight, and an FF8 remake has been pretty expressly ruled out which also probably hurts FF6's chances. We also can't forget Dragon Quest XII, FF7: Episode 3 and Kingdom Hearts 4 are all also in the works, and those will take years. Here are the news pieces on this: Lots of Square Enix Staff Want to Remake Final Fantasy 6 - IGN WWW.IGN.COM A remake of Final Fantasy 6 is a hot topic within the walls of Square Enix as many members of its development teams are eager to make it. A Final Fantasy 6 Remake Would Take 20 Years to Make, Says Square Enix Producer WWW.PUSHSQUARE.COM Twice as long as FF7 - Final Fantasy 7 Remake was a game long thought to be a pipe dream, but Square Enix eventually made it happen. It's being released in t... Final Fantasy 9 remake teased by Square Enix WWW.GAMINGBIBLE.COM Yoshi-P just dropped a major tease suggesting that a Final Fantasy IX remake is on the way. Don’t expect a Final Fantasy 8 remake after FF7 Remake, director suggests - it’s simply too much work WWW.ROCKPAPERSHOTGUN.COM “We really have to think very hard about taking on any kind of project like that.”

I think it's more the kinds of shows they cancel (big budget series people get into) than the simple rate of cancellations. But you are right, it's 10.2%, which is lower than the average by a little. Report: Are TV Show Cancellation Rates Rising? | Luminate LUMINATEDATA.COM This exclusive report aims to unravel the enigma surrounding TV show cancellations by conducting a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of streaming platforms & traditional broadcasters.

This, The Marvels, and to a lesser degree Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (Part One) underperformed in theaters. Probably because this and The Marvels are average at best and Dead Reckoning was billed as "part one" right in the title, which people theorize is what hurt it.

I only meant in terms of the VFX. I watched the first bunch of seasons of The Flash, Supergirl, Arrow, etc. Pretty good at times, I enjoyed them but I had to drop them after awhile, too many episodes with two many seasons and too many interconnected shows.

The weekend recap: -Jurassic Park III (2001; dir. Joe Johnston): 5/10 -The Marvels (2023; dir. Nia DaCosta): 6/10 -Atomic Blonde (2017; dir. David Leitch): 7/10 -Horrible Bosses 2 (2014; dir. Sean Anders): 6.5/10 -The Wandering Earth II (2023; dir. Frant Gwo): 6.5/10 -Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023; dir. James Mangold): 6/10 -Warrior (2011; dir. Gavin O'Connor): 8/10 -The Lost City of Z (2016; dir. James Gray): 8.5/10

I finally watched this over the weekend and it was not very good. It's not bad either, just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I was happy the movie didn't end with a doomsday light beam into the sky and two CGI armies smashing into each other, so that was something, but man this movie was just a bunch of non sequitir scenes strung together. Nick Fury is just joking around the entire time taking nothing seriously (lowering stakes that are already barely there), we waste time on a planet that's a live-action Disney musical, we then waste more time on a bunch of Flerkens (the cats) eating people to save them, there's about 5-6 CGI heavy fights strung throughout the film, and the film is only 1 hour and 45 minutes. We really don't have time to waste on all this nonsense with such a short runtime as is. My younger brother was exhausted by the end because there's no breathing room for any character work at all except for the one montage scene in the middle of the movie where they bond and train to get into sync with each other. They even introduce some mind sync device that never comes up again after it's introduced. The villain is a complete throw away character (as per usual) and there aren't really any stakes to speak of. I'm surprised people here liked it as much as they did since this felt like a pretty inconsequential movie. And man the VFX is getting super dicey in these movies now, we watched Captain Marvel ahead of this and that looked way better as a movie by comparison. This felt like just a step above the CW superhero shows (in terms of the VFX). I'd say this was better than Ant-Man 3, Thor 4 and Doctor Strange 2 but worse than Black Widow, Shang-Chi, Eternals, Guardians 3 and Black Panther 2 of the post Avengers: Endgame movies. I'd give this a 6/10. Black Widow and this sort of sit at the same level.

I finally saw this and my thoughts mirror most of the posts in this thread, the film was fine. It builds ideas it never does anything with (Indy's regrets and failures and Helena's thieving/money scheming ways), the villains are not scary or worrying in the least, the action isn't exciting, what the dial actually is and does is both stupid and nonsensical, etc. The movie just comes and goes. Not bad but not memorable either. The movie spends so much of its 2.5 hour runtime on either exposition and/or action that there's no character work or chemistry that gets time to build. Toby Jones comes and goes. Sallah comes and goes. Antonio Banderas comes and goes. The movie can't get any sort of momentum which is sort of important for an Indiana Jones adventure film. I'm not big into the Indiana Jones movies so I had no horse in this race but this movie just sort of came and went for me. I'm surprised that James Mangold made such a forgettable movie. Honestly the Spielberg ones are at least interesting, good or bad. This wasn't. I'd give it a 6/10.

Yeah, definitely not everything. Maybe the Tozawa stuff but they definitely can't wrap up Jake's time at the Meicho or Sato's rise in the yakuza or Samantha's messed up life back home with creating a business in Tokyo now.