Who now thinks that the first matrix movie should've been a stand alone?

[dscross]

No, I like the sequels. You can tell the Wachowski's liked making them, because they didn't just give people more of the same. It wasn't just for the money.

I have no confidence in the reboot. The Matrix is too young to be rebooted. A sequel or side story would have been better. Either way, I don't expect the (flawed) artistry of the previous movies. They're making it for the money, not for the love of it like the Wachowskis did. It was their child. It will be an imitation.

Did the inconsistencies in the sequels not bother you? They bothered the hell out of me.

Mind telling me what they are before I decide if I'll answer?

I was afraid you'd ask me that. I think there are four major things that ruined the first film for me personally...

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.

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 them 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.

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.

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.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

The Matrix sequels are a bit of a strange case in that they're a bit like the Star Wars prequels. They aren't just a mindless cash in, they do add something to the story and expand upon certain themes and messages. But then they're so poorly executed that it's hard to appreciate them for that. It's a shame, really. I don't think they were unnecessary the way... I dunno, the Hobbit movies are unnecessary, I kinda like what they add to the overall story but I wish they would have been better. I'm not really a big enough fan of the original Matrix to get angry at them just on principle, I don't feel like they are retroactively ruining some great work of art, Matrix was always a pretty shallow affair, had some innovative themes, at least for its time but it's not like it offered a very insightful perspective on them.

I appreciate its message about self realisation, especially knowing that the two sisters responsible for it are transgender women obviously putting some of their personal struggles into the story but... eh. It's been done before and it's been done better. And it's been done in a way that doesn't as blatantly pander to pretentious scene kids.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

@dscross:

"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."

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.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

snip

Well...yeah. I mean, duh. The first film was a self-contained philosophy bomb of an action film. The second and third ones were too much action and too much philosophy, respectively. The first film still catches my attention and kinda blows my mind when I rewatch it, but I can only remember being disappointed by the rest of the trilogy.

Last I heard, they aren't rebooting the series, they're making a same film within the same universe.

It'd be a little dumb if they didn't, because the idea that there's some kind of Matrix-Zion-Chosen One cycle is a key part of the plot in the second and third films.

I mean, it was a plot that made no sense to me, but it was still a pretty key part of it. They'd be stupid to try for a reboot when they could just have a stealth sequel.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The Matrix sequels are a bit of a strange case in that they're a bit like the Star Wars prequels. They aren't just a mindless cash in, they do add something to the story and expand upon certain themes and messages. But then they're so poorly executed that it's hard to appreciate them for that. It's a shame, really. I don't think they were unnecessary the way... I dunno, the Hobbit movies are unnecessary, I kinda like what they add to the overall story but I wish they would have been better. I'm not really a big enough fan of the original Matrix to get angry at them just on principle, I don't feel like they are retroactively ruining some great work of art, Matrix was always a pretty shallow affair, had some innovative themes, at least for its time but it's not like it offered a very insightful perspective on them.

I appreciate its message about self realisation, especially knowing that the two sisters responsible for it are transgender women obviously putting some of their personal struggles into the story but... eh. It's been done before and it's been done better. And it's been done in a way that doesn't as blatantly pander to pretentious scene kids.

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.

 

[viranimus]

No, I like the sequels. You can tell the Wachowski's liked making them, because they didn't just give people more of the same. It wasn't just for the money.

I have no confidence in the reboot. The Matrix is too young to be rebooted. A sequel or side story would have been better. Either way, I don't expect the (flawed) artistry of the previous movies. They're making it for the money, not for the love of it like the Wachowskis did. It was their child. It will be an imitation.

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.)

 

[Hawki]

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.

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."

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...

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

The Matrix sequels are a bit of a strange case in that they're a bit like the Star Wars prequels. They aren't just a mindless cash in, they do add something to the story and expand upon certain themes and messages. But then they're so poorly executed that it's hard to appreciate them for that. It's a shame, really. I don't think they were unnecessary the way... I dunno, the Hobbit movies are unnecessary, I kinda like what they add to the overall story but I wish they would have been better. I'm not really a big enough fan of the original Matrix to get angry at them just on principle, I don't feel like they are retroactively ruining some great work of art, Matrix was always a pretty shallow affair, had some innovative themes, at least for its time but it's not like it offered a very insightful perspective on them.

I appreciate its message about self realisation, especially knowing that the two sisters responsible for it are transgender women obviously putting some of their personal struggles into the story but... eh. It's been done before and it's been done better. And it's been done in a way that doesn't as blatantly pander to pretentious scene kids.

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.

For one because there was absolutely no point, none at all, to turning a book as short as The Hobbit into a trilogy from a narrative standpoint. Of course there was one from a financial standpoint: Having some suckers pay for a ticket thrice. Of course they also turned Twilight: Breaking Dawn into two movies when that was already unnecessary when Harry Potter did it but I digress. The Hobbit movies turned a very simple childrens book into this bloated, overproduced mess of expensive fanfiction that, sure, adapts the general story of the book amidst all the extraneous stuff from the Silmarillion or whatever but loses all the charm, all the endearing simplicity for no other purpose than to have enough content to stretch out into three movies. There's probably a decent adaptation in there if you cut outall the fanfiction and I wouldn't mind seeing that version, I always enjoyed The Hobbit more than the actual Lord of the Rings, but the movies in their current form exemplify everything that wrong with Hollywoods urge to make things more "epic", more full of pathos and most importantly, more profitable.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The Matrix sequels are a bit of a strange case in that they're a bit like the Star Wars prequels. They aren't just a mindless cash in, they do add something to the story and expand upon certain themes and messages. But then they're so poorly executed that it's hard to appreciate them for that. It's a shame, really. I don't think they were unnecessary the way... I dunno, the Hobbit movies are unnecessary, I kinda like what they add to the overall story but I wish they would have been better. I'm not really a big enough fan of the original Matrix to get angry at them just on principle, I don't feel like they are retroactively ruining some great work of art, Matrix was always a pretty shallow affair, had some innovative themes, at least for its time but it's not like it offered a very insightful perspective on them.

I appreciate its message about self realisation, especially knowing that the two sisters responsible for it are transgender women obviously putting some of their personal struggles into the story but... eh. It's been done before and it's been done better. And it's been done in a way that doesn't as blatantly pander to pretentious scene kids.

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.

For one because there was absolutely no point, none at all, to turning a book as short as The Hobbit into a trilogy from a narrative standpoint. Of course there was one from a financial standpoint: Having some suckers pay for a ticket thrice. Of course they also turned Twilight: Breaking Dawn into two movies when that was already unnecessary when Harry Potter did it but I digress. The Hobbit movies turned a very simple childrens book into this bloated, overproduced mess of expensive fanfiction that, sure, adapts the general story of the book amidst all the extraneous stuff from the Silmarillion or whatever but loses all the charm, all the endearing simplicity for no other purpose than to have enough content to stretch out into three movies. There's probably a decent adaptation in there if you cut outall the fanfiction and I wouldn't mind seeing that version, I always enjoyed The Hobbit more than the actual Lord of the Rings, but the movies in their current form exemplify everything that wrong with Hollywoods urge to make things more "epic", more full of pathos and most importantly, more profitable.

I never found the Hobbit book to be that simplistic. Tolkien always had this epic sense of Writing and also "Children's Book" in those days were hardly for "Children" Lets just say they treated the Children alot more mature than how kid's media treats kids today.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

The matrix trilogy did nothing wrong! It's quality schlock that carved out an identity of its' own. I like that each film each went for a different tone, which isn't to everyone's taste and not without flaws. But they had an artistic vision and went balls out unapologetically for it (wait...that wasn't intended as a tasteless pun, oh crap, [small] don't draw attention to it, you fool![/small] It's too late now, they've heard everything. [small]well you know what to do then.[/small] Err, hmm...)
Where was I? Oh right, yeah, no...I don't regret their existence at all.
Sci-fi schlock me up anytime! Except not like Jupiter Ascending. That isn't sci-fi, it's a fairy tale masquerading as a sci-fi. Deceivery!

 

[bluegate]

I have never actually sat down to fully watch the sequels, only ever saw bits and pieces of them as they aired on tv and I'd come across them, so I can't really comment on their quality, but one thing I am happy for is that they expanded upon the universe set up in the original Matrix and how they "resolved" the Machine vs Humanity part of the story.

I would probably hate it more if the Matrix universe ended on the first movie's cliffhanger ending.

 

[dscross]

Snip

Thanks for going to all the trouble of explaining those plot holes to me. However, I think the fact that most of the explanations you talked about are taken from the comics speaks volumes.

A) I think these explanations were created in hindsight to plug plot hole gaps.
B) You shouldn't need to read endlessly around the plot to explain away things that didn't make sense in the films.

I'd also make two extra non plot related points about the sequels...

1. Fight scenes

One of the most remarkable things about the first movie is how realistic the fight scenes were. The actors were trained for four months to fight using traditional wire techniques and expert martial arts coordinators. The fights we saw were mostly using the main actors. There were many stylised fight scenes, but they were mostly done using traditional techniques like wire and other in-camera effects.

One really good example of this is the fight between Morpheus and Neo in the Dojo. Flips, turns and counters gave the scene an almost unrealistic feel, but being able to zoom in on the actors and see their faces made it better.

The sequels used some of the same techniques, and the Wachowski brothers bragged that there were more punches in the sequels than in the first one, but a lot of the scenes were done using CGI models. One sequel had 804 special effects shots. This totally breaks the realistic feel the fight scenes had.

Yes, the fights were more spectacular and they could shoot in ways that they never could using in-camera effects, but the trade-off is that the fights don't feel real.

Looking back at the first movie the fights seem simple and basic compared to the mammoth CGI fight scenes from the sequels.

2. Should the sequels have been made at all? Not really...

The story was self-contained. The explanation of what happened in the past was answered by morpheus and could have made a good prequel. The question of what happened next was strongly implied by Neo saying he was going to show the world what was possible.

We could assume that Neo flying into the sky on a busy street would raise a lot of questions and lead to a full scale revolt against the machines. This would allow humans to break free of the Matrix' control and destroy them. We would imagine hundreds of people running, jumping and flying through the air fighting Agents and destroying the slavery of the virtual world. The remaining humans could finally leave the underground caverns and return to the surface using the new-found revolutionaries to finish the battle and rebuild our world. Pretty satisfying.

Where would the Wachowski's have been without Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions? They would have stayed the directorial geniuses they had become and could have gone onto any number of projects without having to live up to the one project that made them Hollywood darlings instead of creating two films that tried and failed to live up to the iconic Matrix.

They were actually approached to direct Batman Begins, but turned it down to work on the Matrix sequels. That would have been a mind-blower.

I know it sounds a bit melodramatic but, in the end, the sequels destroyed the characters, message, visual effects and genius of the first film. Some things should just be left alone.

 

[twistedmic]

The Matrix is too young to be rebooted.

The original Matrix is nearly twenty years old at this time (it came out in 1999), so I would have to say that it is not 'too young' to be rebooted. Especially when other franchises have been rebooted in less than half that time (Spiderman, Batman and Superman for example).

 

[Ogoid]

It's a common sentiment, but not one I can say I share.

Maybe it's because I had been thoroughly spoiled on its every plot point before I ever got around to watching it, but honestly, the first Matrix never really made that much of an impression on me.

Reloaded, on the other hand, did blow me away - particularly, funnily enough, because one of its most derided scenes, the dialogue between Neo and the Architect. The way it turned the tables on everything (oh, you think you're this irresistible force bringing down the whole system, do you? Well, guess what, hotshot: you're simply yet another cog in the machine), the way the whole thing, the whole world, came down to a crashed computer endlessly repeating the same cycle in the cold, uncaring emptiness of space, it just left me with a sinking feeling in my stomach. I loved it.

Revolutions, though... eh. Underwhelming at best.

 

[dscross]

It's a common sentiment, but not one I can say I share.

Maybe it's because I had been thoroughly spoiled on its every plot point before I ever got around to watching it, but honestly, the first Matrix never really made that much of an impression on me.

Reloaded, on the other hand, did blow me away - particularly, funnily enough, because one of its most derided scenes, the dialogue between Neo and the Architect. The way it turned the tables on everything (oh, you think you're this irresistible force bringing down the whole system, do you? Well, guess what, hotshot: you're simply yet another cog in the machine), the way the whole thing, the whole world, came down to a crashed computer endlessly repeating the same cycle in the cold, uncaring emptiness of space, it just left me with a sinking feeling in my stomach. I loved it.

Revolutions, though... eh. Underwhelming at best.

It does sound like the fact you went in to the first one knowing everything spoiled it for you, because it sounds like the main reason you liked the second one was for the new revelation. The revelation in the first one was far more mind blowing if you knew nothing about it going in. I saw it at the cinema when I was 13 so it will have made a bigger impact on me. It sounds like your friends had told you everything about it so there was nothing left to enjoy or appreciate.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

This is something I had a huge problem with. And not only is Zion a seemingly very nice place to live, ships can apparently just pop in and out whenever they please. From the first movie you got the impression that these people spent years contained in this filthy metal can, that once you're on one of these ships you're there for life. But I guess they could avoided Cypher's little breakdown by simply dropping him off at the nearest lesbian rave cave.

Fight scenes

One of the most remarkable things about the first movie is how realistic the fight scenes were. The actors were trained for four months to fight using traditional wire techniques and expert martial arts coordinators. The fights we saw were mostly using the main actors. There were many stylised fight scenes, but they were mostly done using traditional techniques like wire and other in-camera effects.

One really good example of this is the fight between Morpheus and Neo in the Dojo. Flips, turns and counters gave the scene an almost unrealistic feel, but being able to zoom in on the actors and see their faces made it better.

The sequels used some of the same techniques, and the Wachowski brothers bragged that there were more punches in the sequels than in the first one, but a lot of the scenes were done using CGI models. One sequel had 804 special effects shots. This totally breaks the realistic feel the fight scenes had.

Yes, the fights were more spectacular and they could shoot in ways that they never could using in-camera effects, but the trade-off is that the fights don't feel real.

Looking back at the first movie the fights seem simple and basic compared to the mammoth CGI fight scenes from the sequels.

Also, every fight scene in the original had a theme and gave you some insight into the characters.

- That first sparing match between Morpheus and Neo served as a nice pick-me-up for Neo, who up until then had been fucking depressed due to being trapped in this hell world. It showed him things aren't all bad and he can find his place.

- The fight between Morpheus and agent Smith showed us how truly brutal these agents really are. And by pitting one against the person who at that point was the cool, quiet badass mentor figure that we as the audience admire only drove that point home.

It was action that added to the narrative.

And every fight scene was kept short, so that it never lost its energy or started to feel bloated.

 

[Ogoid]

It does sound like the fact you went in to the first one knowing everything spoiled it for you, because it sounds like the main reason you liked the second one was for the new revelation. The revelation in the first one was far more mind blowing if you knew nothing about it going in. I saw it at the cinema when I was 13 so it will have made a bigger impact on me. It sounds like your friends had told you everything about it so there was nothing left to enjoy or appreciate.

It's certainly possible. I mean, I did enjoy it, but it didn't really blow me away.

But on the other hand, I think the first film follows a pretty common set of narrative devices and conventions - a "Chosen One" prophecy, a reluctant hero, a journey towards self-reliance and overcoming all obstacles, etc., while the second is significantly more subversive of those (look at you, Mr. Big Man, kicking ass left and right... you're a variable in an equation. Predicted, expected, accounted for). I think that played a big role in my enjoyment of it, too.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I do. I own quite a number of copies of the first Matrix. There's a huge ass Matrix poster in our gaming room. We bought up plenty of broken Matrix-branded sunglasses and refurbished them, fitting them with actually decent brand-name lenses, reinforcing the frames where they were too crap to last longer than a week. We still wear them today.

I went to go see Matrix 2 at the cinema. It was the last new Wachowski product I threw money at. Bought a dozen copies of Bound on DVD instead. Matrix 2 is absolute shit. Matrix 3 is a crime against humanity.

 

[Hawki]

From the first movie you got the impression that these people spent years contained in this filthy metal can, that once you're on one of these ships you're there for life. But I guess they could avoided Cypher's little breakdown by simply dropping him off at the nearest lesbian rave cave.

Um...how? In the first movie, they start heading back to Zion as soon as they get Neo. You think that the crew aren't going to get off when they arrive?

Anyway, like I said, even when we see Zion, it struck me as a pretty crummy place to live.

Also, every fight scene in the original had a theme and gave you some insight into the characters.

- That first sparing match between Morpheus and Neo served as a nice pick-me-up for Neo, who up until then had been fucking depressed due to being trapped in this hell world. It showed him things aren't all bad and he can find his place.

- The fight between Morpheus and agent Smith showed us how truly brutal these agents really are. And by pitting one against the person who at that point was the cool, quiet badass mentor figure that we as the audience admire only drove that point home.

It was action that added to the narrative.

I certainly agree there. It's part of why I think Neo vs. Smith in the first movie is still the best "Neo vs. Smith" battle, at least as far as combining action with narrative. I guess if I were to play devil's advocate though, some of the other fight scenes kind of have this:

-Neo vs. Agents: To show us how far Neo has come.

-Neo vs. Smith: I guess to show us how far Neo has come, and set the groundwork for showing how Smith operates, akin to a computer virus?

-Neo vs. Seraph: Not much, guess it shows us that Seraph is Neo's equal, and that, compounded with his 'gold code,' hints that he's a previous version of The One.

-Highway Chase: Visually spectacular, but you're not going to find any character development.

Revolutions...um, well, there is Neo vs. Smith again, but the subtext is so 'sub' that it's a reasonable reaction to ask "wait, what just happened?"

So, yeah, first Matrix film is definately better in weaving in fights with its narrative, but I'm willing to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Casual Shinji]

From the first movie you got the impression that these people spent years contained in this filthy metal can, that once you're on one of these ships you're there for life. But I guess they could avoided Cypher's little breakdown by simply dropping him off at the nearest lesbian rave cave.

Um...how? In the first movie, they start heading back to Zion as soon as they get Neo. You think that the crew aren't going to get off when they arrive?

Uh, no they don't. The most that is said about actually going to Zion is Tank telling Neo that if he lives long enough he might even see it. Indicating this isn't a place they go to willy nilly.

And if they were on their way to Zion, you don't think Cypher would've been able to stick it out for a few more days?

Anyway, like I said, even when we see Zion, it struck me as a pretty crummy place to live.

Seeing as it's large and open, has a huge, roomy dockingbay, loads of properly furnished houses, more than enough space to cultivate fruits and vegatables, and a giant conference hall, I'd say it's not too much worse than a modern city, except that it's underground. It creates an image that humanity is thriving, as opposed to the first movie that shows us how weak and powerless humans are in the machine world.