Movies New Matrix Movie In The Works

[skillzdadirecta]

Written and directed by Cabin in The Woods writer Drew Goddard and Executive Produced by Lana Wachowski.

 

New ‘Matrix’ Movie In The Works At Warner Bros From Drew Goddard

DEADLINE.COM

---

'The Matrix' New Movie to be Directed, Written by Drew Goddard

 

Hopefully it's an entirey new take with new characters and stars.

[best3444]

I agree it should be all new characters but Keanu Reeves is such a legen in my eyes I'd like for maybe a cameo. But it most likely won't happen. Unfortunately no Matrix movie will top the first but that's not a goal of any film maker really. Lots of potential here with modern technology. 

[Greatoneshere]

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.

[Keyser_Soze]

This has the potential to be the quality level of Enter The Matrix. Meaning, don't make it please.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

OH GOD WHY?!?!?

[best3444]

Why? Because Hollywood is completely out of ideas. 

[Mr.Vic20]

WoahDejaVuCatScene.Gif

[silentbob]

I wouldn’t mind more of the universe. I enjoyed Resurrection for the approach it took and possible future again. Although I would like to see something near the beginning or something involving “the one’s” that came before. Go like fucking Avatar: The Last Airbender and have their knowledge downloaded and passed down to the next. 

[Air_Delivery]

I stopped watching Matrix movies after Reloaded

[Kamusha]

Resurrections had some interesting idea but suffered from surprisingly so-so action scenes. When you think of a Matrix movie with modern day effects you expect something visually mind-blowing and it sadly did not deliver in that department.

 

The world is compelling enough that you could tell others stories within that world but at the same time it’s gonna be real hard to move beyond that OG cast. Even Resurrections suffers from the lack of Laurence Fishburne.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Kamusha said:

Resurrections had some interesting idea but suffered from surprisingly so-so action scenes. When you think of a Matrix movie with modern day effects you expect something visually mind-blowing and it sadly did not deliver in that department.

 

The world is compelling enough that you could tell others stories within that world but at the same time it’s gonna be real hard to move beyond that OG cast. Even Resurrections suffers from the lack of Laurence Fishburne.

 

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.

[skillzdadirecta]

9 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

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.

The only thing I agree with here is the The Matrix Ressurections was a giant fuck you to the audience. That movie was trash deliberately or otherwise.... the fact that EVERY MAtrix movie after the first one was mediocre to bad lends some credence to the urban legend that The Wachowskis stole the first movie from someone and were later sued and the case was settled out of court. This has been disproven of course, but there's The first movie WAAAAAY up here, then The Animatrix and THEN everything else after that.

If they are going to keep the franchise going, new blood is needed and Drew Godard is a solid choice. Hopefully he starts with a blank slate. Plenty of other stories to tell in this universe.

[Spork3245]

Reloaded was fine (minus the rave scene that went on for way too long)... until Revolution came out and decided to go the stupidest possible route for everything that was set-up in Reloaded. 

Example:

Audience theory: HOLY FUCK, THERE'S TWO MATRIX? THE REAL WORLD ONE IS JUST TO EMULATE CHOICE AND ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL? JEBUS!
What Revolution went with: Neo isn't just able to manipulate the Matrix code, he also has fucking magic powers in the real world. Also, this has happened 1000000 times before and is some dumbass cycle.

[Keyser_Soze]

The "rave scene" was like 2 minutes long. I always am baffled by this complaint.

[Spork3245]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

The "rave scene" was like 2 minutes long. I always am baffled by this complaint.

 

2 minutes too long.

 

And it's a bit over 5 minutes.  

[Greatoneshere]

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The only thing I agree with here is the The Matrix Ressurections was a giant fuck you to the audience. That movie was trash deliberately or otherwise.... the fact that EVERY MAtrix movie after the first one was mediocre to bad lends some credence to the urban legend that The Wachowskis stole the first movie from someone and were later sued and the case was settled out of court. This has been disproven of course, but there's The first movie WAAAAAY up here, then The Animatrix and THEN everything else after that.

If they are going to keep the franchise going, new blood is needed and Drew Godard is a solid choice. Hopefully he starts with a blank slate. Plenty of other stories to tell in this universe.

 

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.

[Keyser_Soze]

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

It seems pretty deliberate, 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.

 

How about the Rave scene?

[Greatoneshere]

17 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

How about the Rave scene?

 

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.

[Keyser_Soze]

30 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

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.

 

Life's too short to spend it watching Keanu Reeves having sex.

[Spork3245]

It's more-so that the rave scene just completely "stops" the movie, breaks all pacing, and serves absolutely zero purpose.

[Greatoneshere]

16 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

It's more-so that the rave scene just completely "stops" the movie, breaks all pacing, and serves absolutely zero purpose.

 

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.  

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

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.  

That’s an unneeded “purpose” in this movie, though. So, sure, it technically serves a “purpose” as all things technically do, but it serves no purpose to the plot/story/anything to do with this movie in a way that adds value. The scene could’ve been 30-60 seconds long with “hey look, they have parties”, but it just goes on with zero dialogue or much of anything happening besides lights flashing and terrible camera cuts for roughly 5 minutes.

[Greatoneshere]

59 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

That’s an unneeded “purpose” in this movie, though. So, sure, it technically serves a “purpose” as all things technically do, but it serves no purpose to the plot/story/anything to do with this movie in a way that adds value. The scene could’ve been 30-60 seconds long with “hey look, they have parties”, but it just goes on with zero dialogue or much of anything happening besides lights flashing and terrible camera cuts for roughly 5 minutes.

 

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.

[skillzdadirecta]

I refuse to believe that the same two filmmakers who took every opportunity to "sell out" and exploit their first major Hollywood Blockbuster success with comic books, videogames, animes and every tie in under the sun (which they were both intimately involved in) "DELIBERATELY" made bad movies to teach the audience some kind of lesson especially when those same two filmmakers have not only failed to repeat the success of that first movie with every subsequent film they've made.

 

And the difference between The Last Jedi and The Last of Us part 2 is that those works are devisive because they subverted audience expectations but were in and of themselves, well made and well crafted despite the creative and narrative choices they took. You CANNOT say that about ANY of the Matrix sequels. Outside of a few action set pieces, which apparently the Wachowskis now find distasteful, The two Matrix films after the original are overly long, self indulgent dreck that get even worse upon repeated viewings. The fourth movie is even worse because it has literally NOTHING redeeming going for it and is best forgotten that it even exists. And it's interesting to me that The Wachowskis on one hand don't seem to want anything to do with the property anymore but ONE of them is on board as an executive producer on this Sequel/reboot or whatever it's going to be. No one is forcing them to be involved in any capacity which is obvious because one of them isn't involved apparently.

 

Lastly comparing every film under the sun to Marvel/DC is weak for the simple reason that those movies aren't trying to be anything other than what they are. Popcorn entertainment. Whether or not they succeed is in the eye of the beholder, but what those movies DON'T try to be is pretentious arthouse sci-fi epics that pretend to be deeper than what they really are. the original Matrix was a great movie... a sci-fi classic in fact and I get that it came out at a time when a lot of us were of an age where we were starting to question certain things about reality and society and it was in fact, The Star Wars of its generation. But unlike Star Wars, the first film was the best one in the franchise and as it turns out... seems to be the anomaly which is weird. The Wachowski's are what, 2 and 5 with The Matrix franchise? Counting the Animatrix and the two videogames? Not a great track record.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

The "rave scene" was like 2 minutes long. I always am baffled by this complaint.

because it feels longer than it actually is and is uncomfortable as HELL to sit through. 

[Spork3245]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

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.

All I said was that it was the worst part of Reloaded

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Not enough Monica Bellucci was the worst part of Reloaded

 

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I refuse to believe that the same two filmmakers who took every opportunity to "sell out" and exploit their first major Hollywood Blockbuster success with comic books, videogames, animes and every tie in under the sun (which they were both intimately involved in) "DELIBERATELY" made bad movies to teach the audience some kind of lesson especially when those same two filmmakers have not only failed to repeat the success of that first movie with every subsequent film they've made.

 

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".

 

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

And the difference between The Last Jedi and The Last of Us part 2 is that those works are devisive because they subverted audience expectations but were in and of themselves, well made and well crafted despite the creative and narrative choices they took. You CANNOT say that about ANY of the Matrix sequels. Outside of a few action set pieces, which apparently the Wachowskis now find distasteful, The two Matrix films after the original are overly long, self indulgent dreck that get even worse upon repeated viewings. The fourth movie is even worse because it has literally NOTHING redeeming going for it and is best forgotten that it even exists. And it's interesting to me that The Wachowskis on one hand don't seem to want anything to do with the property anymore but ONE of them is on board as an executive producer on this Sequel/reboot or whatever it's going to be. No one is forcing them to be involved in any capacity which is obvious because one of them isn't involved apparently.

 

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.

 

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Lastly comparing every film under the sun to Marvel/DC is weak for the simple reason that those movies aren't trying to be anything other than what they are. Popcorn entertainment. Whether or not they succeed is in the eye of the beholder, but what those movies DON'T try to be is pretentious arthouse sci-fi epics that pretend to be deeper than what they really are. the original Matrix was a great movie... a sci-fi classic in fact and I get that it came out at a time when a lot of us were of an age where we were starting to question certain things about reality and society and it was in fact, The Star Wars of its generation. But unlike Star Wars, the first film was the best one in the franchise and as it turns out... seems to be the anomaly which is weird. The Wachowski's are what, 2 and 5 with The Matrix franchise? Counting the Animatrix and the two videogames? Not a great track record.

 

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. 

 

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

because it feels longer than it actually is and is uncomfortable as HELL to sit through. 

 

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.

[Reputator]

Imagine deliberately bombing a sequel to your own franchise in order to... help steer your career? Oh, and deliberately involving yourself to protect the franchise's legacy by.... again, making a bad sequel?

 

Either that's complete nonsense or Wakowskis haven't a damn clue what they're doing.

 

Based on what I've seen of their work post-The Matrix, I'd say it's the latter. Sure, I enjoyed Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas, but a lot of people didn't, and they, like the Matrix sequels, are very uneven, very divisive films not for their content, but for their quality.

 

To expand on the Star Wars comparison @skillzdadirecta made, it's like how Lucas couldn't make a good movie without heavy studio interference. The Matrix is that movie, and when the Wakowskis were given more creative freedom... they showed weakness. Intentionally or otherwise, they aren't actually capable of replicating that success.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Reputator said:

Imagine deliberately bombing a sequel to your own franchise in order to... help steer your career? Oh, and deliberately involving yourself to protect the franchise's legacy by.... again, making a bad sequel?

 

Either that's complete nonsense or Wakowskis haven't a damn clue what they're doing.

 

Based on what I've seen of their work post-The Matrix, I'd say it's the latter. Sure, I enjoyed Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas, but a lot of people didn't, and they, like the Matrix sequels, are very uneven, very divisive films not for their content, but for their quality.

 

To expand on the Star Wars comparison @skillzdadirecta made, it's like how Lucas couldn't make a good movie without heavy studio interference. The Matrix is that movie, and when the Wakowskis were given more creative freedom... they showed weakness. Intentionally or otherwise, they aren't actually capable of replicating that success.

Bingo.

[sblfilms]

I guess I’m struggling to understand how making a terrible sequel like Resurrections on purpose protects the series from being ruined. Is the argument that it is better to set your own house on fire than for somebody else to set it on fire?

 

It is still a pile of ash at the end.

 

I think it simply is a film where the filmmaker got too cute with an idea for their own good and put out a poorly realized project. It happens, and no need to glamorize the failure with an assumption of intentionality.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

I guess I’m struggling to understand how making a terrible sequel like Resurrections on purpose protects the series from being ruined. Is the argument that it is better to set your own house on fire than for somebody else to set it on fire?

 

It is still a pile of ash at the end.

 

I think it simply is a film where the filmmaker got too cute with an idea for their own good and put out a poorly realized project. It happens, and no need to glamorize the failure with an assumption of intentionality.

Again, Bingo.

[legend]

I think the only thing I remember about Resurrections is that Laurence Fishburne was tragically not cast and it's now the two instead of the one.

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, Reputator said:

Imagine deliberately bombing a sequel to your own franchise in order to... help steer your career? Oh, and deliberately involving yourself to protect the franchise's legacy by.... again, making a bad sequel?

 

Either that's complete nonsense or Wakowskis haven't a damn clue what they're doing.

 

Based on what I've seen of their work post-The Matrix, I'd say it's the latter. Sure, I enjoyed Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas, but a lot of people didn't, and they, like the Matrix sequels, are very uneven, very divisive films not for their content, but for their quality.

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

I guess I’m struggling to understand how making a terrible sequel like Resurrections on purpose protects the series from being ruined. Is the argument that it is better to set your own house on fire than for somebody else to set it on fire?

 

It is still a pile of ash at the end.

 

I think it simply is a film where the filmmaker got too cute with an idea for their own good and put out a poorly realized project. It happens, and no need to glamorize the failure with an assumption of intentionality.

 

Again, they weren't trying to make a terrible sequel, I also think they resent what the Matrix trilogy is to some degree to the studio and to fans. It's like the ending to Hideaki Anno's fourth Rebuild of Evangelion film, where he basically goes and tells otaku/anime die hards to stop caring about the minutia of Evangelion and go touch grass. This is similar in that it's trying to be like, stop watching these movies wanting a certain kind of thing (action scenes) because there are more important things/ideas to explore in film (like the first 45 minutes with Keanu and the computer game company, as an example). 

 

Basically, they wanted to be a metafictional sequel commenting on itself while disapproving of the fan service audiences wanted. I haven't said their films aren't divisive, I have. Again, I think you guys are missing what I'm saying: they weren't trying to make a terrible sequel, they were trying to make an idiosyncratic one. I was just saying the action is so-so because she didn't care about the action. That doesn't mean I think that outside of that she was trying to make a bad movie. I think she was trying to make a good, different kind of movie than previous Matrix movies and people didn't respond well to it, whether it was done well or not.

 

I mean, in the opening scene they recreate the opening of the original film but it's all fake looking and shitty and poorly done, which is one of many scenes where they are commenting on simply remaking/rebooting the same thing just to do the same thing over again. I'm sure Lana Wachowski hoped people would respond to the film, so the film failed in that regard, all I'm saying is there is intentionality to the film, even if it isn't successful. I'm not trying to glamorize anything, the evidence is in the scenes, the film comments on itself regularly. I think a lot of audience members, like with a lot of divisive films, viscerally reacted negatively to something that seemed to rail against its own existence, and I think it's indicative of Lana Wachowski's head space when making the film. At no point have I said that this makes the film a 10/10 or something, just that the movie is more interesting than people have given it credit for. I'm not at all disputing their lack of success but I don't care about that, just the art itself.