Kyrian007 said:
WB is rebooting the Matrix because after enjoying tentpole franchises LotR and Harry Potter making huge cash all at once... now they are really bereft of huge franchises. They are throwing everything they have at the wall to try and make something stick. They are rebooting POLICE ACADEMY... that freaking reeks of desperation.
I could swear we've had this conversation before, but Fantastic Beasts grossed highly (not as high as HP, but the franchise itself is still going), and the DCEU has brought in the dough, regardless of critical reception.
Remus said:
One big reason why they're still arguing about the movies is because, once the Wachowski bros became the Wachowski sisters, it painted the storyline in a completely different light. For example, Switch was originally going to be gender fluid, a male in the real world whose "residual self image" or Matrix avatar was female. This being the 90s, that idea didn't float
As opposed to...now?
I actually think that's a pretty interesting idea, but if it happened today, people would run riot claiming that "identity politics" were being "forced down our throats."
Remus said:
As a result, even though their "future" is now our past,
We're, um, a long a way off from 2199 (or more like 2699 given the cycle the machines enforce), or even the mid-21st century. It can still happen y'know. Still happen...
Squilookle said:
I'm reading this while watching a vid about the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
I'm sure you can guess where I'm going with that.
What other movies qualify for this though? I'm sure there must be heaps other than just those two.
It depends on how narrow your criteria is. If it's simply a case of "the series stopped being good" after a certain point, or "the sequels aren't as good as the original," then there's quite a few, but, well, yeah. Pirates is kinda funny though, as it started out as a single movie, then became a trilogy, then became a pentalogy, and could well go beyond that. The Matrix at least had the grace to stop at movie 3.
And I actually consider the first two PotC films to be "good," but films 3 and 4...eh. Ranking PotC for me is a simple case of 1>2>3>4 (haven't seen 5).
dscross said:
1. The prophecy being a master plan by the machines was ridiculous...
In the sequels it turns out the machines created the prophecy to weed out people who would naturally rebel at being in the Matrix and group them together in a fake resistance movement. Then, they could easily corral them together and kill them. Here's the problem though. Everything in the Matrix takes massive amounts of coding and power. If the machines know people are going to take it down why bother rebuild it again?
Another problem with the machines creating the prophecy is the Agents. The Agents are sent in to help maintain control and take down the resistance. But, apparently this is a lie. This means the machines are wasting time and energy chasing down a rebellion that they created.
There is an even bigger problem with this though. Agent Smith's motivation for attacking Neo and Morpheus is that he can't stand being in the Matrix anymore. In fact, it turns out he's a big sap and the machines are lying to him. Since Smith doesn't know the truth we can assume that it's a closely guarded secret among the machines. Here's a question: What would happen if the Agents found out it was all a big joke? Would they join the resistance? The whole point of the Matrix was that the machines were so desperate to find power they would build a massive virtual world to hold the humans in. But the Architect said that the machines are willing to live without the power the humans provide. So what's the point? Revenge?
In the first movie the machines seem cold, calculating and superhumanly intelligent. By the third movie they look pretty stupid. Kind of like they were making it up as they went along.
It's convoluted, but comprehensible.
So, basically, the Oracle discovers how to make the Matrix work, by giving humans a choice to accept the code or not. 99% do (blue pills). 1% don't (red pills). It's stated that if the red pills stay in the Matrix it could lead to disaster (systems crash, bending the rules, etc.), so they let them go. That said, it kind of generates a plot hole that the very first film has as well - if the machine sees John/Jane Doe wake up from their pod, and can't plug them back in (which can happen if the 'waking up' is only temporary), why just let them go and not kill them? Surely the machines know that at least some of the people waking up in the pods are being unplugged by the Resistance.
As for the Agents, well, I guess they don't know about it, but then again, it does have poetic irony, that the enforcers of the Matrix are being enforced themselves. Just programs designed to prevent too many red pills from leaving, and dealing with them as they can. As for the Architect, it isn't a plothole. His line is "there's certain levels of survival we are willing to accept." Ergo, the machines have alternatives to the Matrix, but they'd rather not have to utilize them.
dscross said:
2. The agents become a joke...
In the first film, the Agents are all-powerful and virtually unstoppable. They say when you see an agent you run. They were nameless, faceless and omnipotent. In Matrix Reloaded, the Agents, despite being upgraded, can be beaten by anyone. Neo, of course, can handle them because he's more powerful, but why can Trinity or Morpheus handle take them out so easily? Because the main villains are weaker in the sequels they have to add a whole bunch of more deadly enemies, like werewolves and vampires. Inevitably the other villains just end up looking cool, but don't have the power and impact of the black-suited agents from the first film. They become so useless that they were eliminated completely from Matrix Revolutions.
Trinity and Morpheus never actually take out any agents. Not really. Trinity fights one off, but still has to jump out a window, still gets shot, and would have died if not for Neo. Morpheus beats one, but only because he has a weapons advantage, only because Niobe saves him, and only because he gets the drop on the agent when he's distracted with the Keymaker. I mean, I certainly get what you're saying, but I don't feel the agents were that downgraded.
dscross said:
3. The real world turns out to be not that bad...
In the first film everything in the Real World outside the Matrix is dirty, old and worn-out. All life on the surface is extinct and humans are forced to eat a disgusting soup of synthetic proteins to survive. When they go to Zion in the sequels though there seems to be plenty of food. So, why send out ships without provisions? It seems like a cruel joke. Cypher complains about being cold and eating the 'same goop day after day.' It provides him with the motivation to betray his crew because life is so horrible in the Real World.
But, in the sequels life is pretty good for humans. Sure Zion is underground, but they seem to have nice food since everyone is healthy. The clothes are kind of simple, but nice and dramatic. They even have time to have a rave party or two. So, Cypher ends up looking petty. What he should have done is just ask to be transferred back to Zion on shore leave. That would have saved the life of Switch, Apok and Dozer.
It's established in the comics that the food you see them eating in the ceremony is in limited supply, back when they were able to temporarily cultivate wheat on the surface before the machines found and terminated the operation. We can assume that the goop seen in the first film is standard for most of the people of Zion. And, personally, Zion does strike me as being a bit of a shithole even in the next two films, even without a machine army bearing down on you. The clothing is basic, the city shows signs of dilapidation, there's no sign of any ammenities (we do know it has at least one library, so there is that), so, yeah.
dscross said:
4. Impossible things seemed normal to people in the matrix...
In the first movie, the Matrix is populated with real people. The world seems kind of sad and tragic at the same time. There were old women, children, businessmen and homeless people
It felt real and the world was populated with people that react with horror and shock to the over-the-top things the characters are doing like jumping across roof tops and dodging bullets.
By the second and third movie no one seems to notice anything. Most of the people they interact with are either programs or from the real world and know exactly whats going on. They don't think there's anything strange about running up a wall or fighting three guys with their pinky. Everyone else just seems to walk blissfully by as the heroes topple cars, fly through the air and destroy buildings. This has the opposite effect.
Something is only interesting if its unique. The simple act of Trinity running over rooftops becomes more spectacular when we see people trying and failing to do the same thing. When someone says 'that's impossible' we are convinced we are seeing something magical.
By the third movie the film-makers have to make things more and more spectacular until finally it becomes impossible and our brain shuts down. Hundreds of Agent Smiths fighting in the rain is less interesting than seeing one person jump from one building to another when it feels real.
That's a fair point. There's a humanity to the first film that the sequels lack, how the protagonists interact more with programs than humans.
On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, the next two films do kind of touch on this. In the second film we see the Merovingian trigger an orgasm in the "woman in the pink dress" just so he can have a blowjob. The agents and twins are willing to kill numerous innocent people while pursuing red pills. Neo likely kills numerous people when saving Trinity, coupling to the people red pills kill in the first films.
I do agree with Neo fighting Smith, that as visually spectacular as the 2/3 film fights are, the first one has more emotional investment. But, like I said, while the order of quality goes 1>2>3 for me, I find that there's still stuff worth defending in the first film's sequels.
Samtemdo8 said:
I always justify the whole Neo vs Agent Smith fight is because Neo has been granted the powers of the One, he can do these things within the Matrix because he is braking the rules in a computer world.
He's essentially a living breathing hacker who activated the cheat code of God Mode to himself in the Matrix.
I don't think it needs justifying per se. Neo's far more powerful than the average Agent Smith, but the one he fights has the eyes of the oracle (who's more powerful because...reasons?). Neo might be getting some boost, but I think it's more key that Smith is the one in 'uber mode,' so to speak.
Samtemdo8 said:
How was the Hobbit a cash-in of Lord of the Rings and not an adaption of the book? And the book parts it did adapted was well adapted.
I like the Hobbit films, but they have a wildly different tone from the book, even if the plot is kept.
That said, it doesn't bother me. One, it was stated from the start that the film trilogy would be less a direct adaptation and more a collection of lore, including the Hobbit, but also material in the appendacies, hence a heavier tie-in with Lord of the Rings than what the original book featured. Two, it was still trying to keep to the tone and aesthetic of the LotR film trilogy, hence why we don't have literal talking birds for instance.
viranimus said:
Psst.. hate to break it to you but the original was a horrible imitation of something. (Though I adore the first film despite it spit in the face of its own genesis.)
Dark City?