Let's hope it doesn't suck!

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/matrix-4-keanu-reeves-carrie-anne-moss-lana-wachowski-1203307955/

Get ready to re-enter the Matrix.

Lana Wachowski is set to write and direct a fourth film set in the world of “The Matrix,” with Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss reprising their roles as Neo and Trinity, respectively.

Warner Bros. Pictures and Village Roadshow Pictures will produce and globally distribute the film. Warner Bros. Picture Group chairman Toby Emmerich made the announcement on Tuesday.

“We could not be more excited to be re-entering ‘The Matrix’ with Lana,” said Emmerich. “Lana is a true visionary—a singular and original creative filmmaker—and we are thrilled that she is writing, directing and producing this new chapter in ‘The Matrix’ universe.”

In addition to Wachowski, the script was also written by Aleksander Hemon and David Mitchell. Wachowski is also producing with Grant Hill. Sources say the film is eyed to begin production at the top of 2020.


The three previous films —“The Matrix,” “The Matrix Reloaded” and “The Matrix Revolutions” — have collectively earned more than $1.6 billion at the global box office. All three were written and directed by Lana and her sister, Lilly, and starred Reeves and Moss.

“Many of the ideas Lilly and I explored 20 years ago about our reality are even more relevant now. I’m very happy to have these characters back in my life and grateful for another chance to work with my brilliant friends,” Wachowski said.

The first “Matrix” had its 20th anniversary this year, marked by special screenings at select AMC locations starting on Aug. 30.

Well, the best part of that is to see Matrix 1 in Imax August 30th now. lol Idk, I would love for another good Matrix movie but will see what we get. Keanu is having a resurgence now so why not.

they all basically died at the end of the last film, right?

>they all basically died at the end of the last film, right?
>
>

The first one was just lightning in a bottle. No shade. It's rare for any filmmaker to have a movie which altered filmmaking to such a degree much less be able to do it throughout a trilogy.

But I don't see anything in their filmography which suggests this new movie will be great. Granted, if they've been working on the script for years, that might help. (Lana and Lilly worked on the first Matrix for eight years before filming.)

Then again, I thought the first one would be trash judging from the trailer, so...

The three movies and the one animated one was enough for me, it ended but not what I wanted it to but to me it should be left alone and time to create some other movies similar but not addition to it though.

These days no movie is taboo to touch, every movie is fair game to be remade, being re-casted, or making more sequels/prequels to.

I guess it's all opinions and we just have to wait and see, what happens, happens, it might be good, it might be bad.

i was reading this like 'who the hell is lilly?'.

I also noticed how it said that Lana is working on it, but not both of the sisters.

Are they no longer working together?

That gives me even less confidence in them. But in general I've had it with this series

No message

No message

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/braveheart-cinematographer-john-toll-boarding-matrix-4-1233871

UGUST 22, 2019 3:09pm PT by Carolyn Giardina

'Braveheart' Cinematographer John Toll Boarding 'Matrix 4'
The two-time Oscar winner's credits include "Legends of the Fall,' 'The Thin Red Line' and 'Iron Man 3.'

The two-time Oscar winner's credits include "Legends of the Fall,' 'The Thin Red Line' and 'Iron Man 3.'
Cinematographer John Toll, who won two back-to-back Oscars for his work for Edward Zwick's Legends of the Fall in 1994 and Mel Gibson's Braveheart in 1995, is in negotiations to shoot the new Matrix movie, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

Lana Wachowski, who co-created the trilogy with Lilly Wachowski, is returning to the director's chair for the endeavor, and Toll's deal, when closed, will reunite him with the filmmaker, for whom he shot features Cloud Atlas, Jupiter Ascending, and the Wachowskis' Netflix series, Sense8.

Matrix 4 is also bringing back Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss to their roles as Neo and Trinity. Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow are backing the return of the action franchise.

The DP's additional credits include Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line (for which he earned a third Oscar nomination), as well as Almost Famous, The Last Samurai, Iron Man 3, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and the pilot for series Breaking Bad. He received the American Society of Cinematographers Lifetime Achievement Award in 2016.

Toll's next film is Harriet, directed by Kasi Lemmons and staring Cynthia Erivo, which is slated to open Nov 1.

Are they not still working together? Did Lily (wisely) pass on this?

She said she was exhausted after Jupiter Ascending, Sense8, and coming out as trans, and she just didn't really want to go through this big an undertaking. Makes sense, honestly. Hope she gets back into filmmaking soon, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ix7TUGVYIo

I guess they’ll go into what the over-verbose Colonel Sanders said, that there’s definitely always a Neo/The One, but there’s also always a Morpheus to awaken him, there’s always a Trinity to fall in love with.

than just this is a soft reboot of that movie with some of the same actors and some different people in similar roles.

Two things could be going on IMO: the Matrix is multiple layers, and the Matrix was just the, like, core layer where the code gets written.

Or, Neo is currently plugged into his own custom version of the Matrix/life support, because if he hasn't died then the cycle can't restart and it's how the machines/humans maintain the peace, but it also means he's trapped in a sort of Groundhog Day scenario


all I really know is I hope it pays off, and this isn't just another Aliens/Terminator type situation!

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

Visuals alone are going to smoke, like 98% of studio output.

you got a whole generation of yougin's that know him as John Wick. That and have you seen him without the beard? When he shaved for Bill and Ted it was rough. That chin is gone fam

You can see him in the trailer with his hair and beard shaved though - when he's not plugged into the matrix.

>you got a whole generation of yougin's that know him as John
>Wick. That and have you seen him without the beard? When he
>shaved for Bill and Ted it was rough. That chin is gone fam

Dude's body and eyes look young, but his jaw does not.

>Dude's body and eyes look young, but his jaw does not.

Now I can't wait.

They color-timed the scenes marvelously.

But I'm also not terribly excited. It looks closer to Reloaded than the OG Matrix because there didn't seem to be the esoteric symbolism of the first. Seems more action movie than more than the sum of its parts like the first movie in the series.

But then again, I didn't like the trailer for the first movie and ended up watching the actual movie literally one hundred times...

Seemed like some Johnny Mnemonic shit from the trailer. I immediately wrote it off and didn't see it for the first week or two. I was dumb.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I can't think of another trailer that had me more intrigued than this one. That Bullet time?! Whew.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I was an effects geek at the time, and 22, when the first one came out so I was jaded and spoiled. LOL

But I didn't like Reeves as Neo in the trailer and the dialogue just felt really flat. Like Longo, it just came off as cliched sci-fi to me.

Obviously, I was wrong. I'm gonna have to wear that L to the grave. LOL

But in this new trailer, the effects are great, but I didn't see anything in the story that sold me.

That being said, I'll watch this new one in the theater. I just don't have much of an expectation given how long it's been since the Revolutions and that 2 and 3 did not do justice to the first one.

better special effects. Which ended up being kinda accurate, but the story was much, much better than I'd anticipated.

1999 was a crazy time for films...special effects were hitting the borderline phase where as a viewer we knew anything was possible (which could take away a bit of the amazement), but you still had films doing things that hadn't been done before so that amazement would still be there in the theater.

On top of that the Matrix was one of the first big films I remember going all in with the internet based marketing campaign (along with Blair Witch), with the website having all kinds of background lore before the film was out.

The technology used for the bullet time effect wasn't new, but the effects team had to retrofit quite a bit of it to use in the film. It's hard to think that far out of the box and pull things off.

That being said, the wire rigging scenes blew my mind (I wasn't terribly into the Hong Kong movies that The Matrix pulled that technique from, so I walked into it cold), and I always liked the interrogation scene and the animations of the 'bugs' and the hover ships.

I'm just being picky because I'm being a brat.

Yeah, for as much as the film itself was innovative and was unlike anyone had seen, so was the marketing. Although I was not too fond of the trailer, it did its job by showing very little of what made the movie great. And from what I vaguely remember about the website, it was impressive.

All in all, the three movies are impressive. In a way, they are the Star Wars of Gen Y and early Millenials. The other movies besides the original lack the first movie's magic, but there are some awe-inspiring qualities in them. The highway scene from Reloaded still is one of the most impressive set pieces I've ever seen. I watched a clip from in a few months ago, and it still holds up really well. And the Neo / Mr. Smith battle in Revolutions was top-notch.

This is not what you think it's gonna be.

There's a 30 minute stretch where this shit gets meta as fuck and starts making fun of itself. At that point, I knew the "fans" are gonna hate this.

There's a lot here with certain characters that are going to infuriate people.

Word of advice go in cold and rewatch the trilogy beforehand. This elevates Reloaded and Revolutions.

Very excited to see what come next.

here's a 30 minute stretch where this shit gets meta as fuck
>and starts making fun of itself. At that point, I knew the
>"fans" are gonna hate this.
>
>There's a lot here with certain characters that are going to
>infuriate people.

The first act is essentially a comedy about her internal debate whether making yet another sequel to a film whose selling point was its originality has any merit, if it's possible to make something that extends a story in a fresh manner or if all an audience wants is the same safe nostalgia trip so many movies offer.

At a time when nostalgia is at peak popularity, I wouldn't be surprised at all if such meta commentary and self-reflexive dialogue tanks with the same fans who love "redpilled" and shit.

Also, the very end, which I won't spoil... it of course makes perfect sense textually for the film, but it of course contains an element tailor made to piss off a certain subset of moviegoers. I actually really loved the choice, not because it's "woke" or whatever, but because it's built to and fits thematically to a T. But... yeah, lmao. Folks will be mad.

I *do* think that people are right to be miffed about the exclusion of Fishburne and, to some extent, Weaving. I think you could've found a way to make them both work pretty easily. That said, if one of the central fucking themes is "we're not giving you what you expect, we're changing it up to keep it fresh, that's more important than the safety and the comfort of nostalgia"... then I also get why they made some of the timeline choices they did and casting decisions they did.

>here's a 30 minute stretch where this shit gets meta as fuck
>>and starts making fun of itself. At that point, I knew the
>>"fans" are gonna hate this.
>>
>>There's a lot here with certain characters that are going to
>>infuriate people.
>
>The first act is essentially a comedy about her internal
>debate whether making yet another sequel to a film whose
>selling point was its originality has any merit, if it's
>possible to make something that extends a story in a fresh
>manner or if all an audience wants is the same safe nostalgia
>trip so many movies offer.

Agreed. One of the things I loved dearly was the fact that this wasn't afraid to do the exact opposite of what's expected. I wish more franchise films did this.

>
>At a time when nostalgia is at peak popularity, I wouldn't be
>surprised at all if such meta commentary and self-reflexive
>dialogue tanks with the same fans who love "redpilled" and
>shit.

Absolutely.

>
>Also, the very end, which I won't spoil... it of course makes
>perfect sense textually for the film, but it of course
>contains an element tailor made to piss off a certain subset
>of moviegoers. I actually really loved the choice, not because
>it's "woke" or whatever, but because it's built to and fits
>thematically to a T. But... yeah, lmao. Folks will be mad.


The stuff they do with Trinity is gonna make a certain subset of fans shit themselves, especially the final shot. I loved it as not only are the toxic people gonna be mad, but it opens up a whole new set of possibilities.



>
>I *do* think that people are right to be miffed about the
>exclusion of Fishburne and, to some extent, Weaving. I think
>you could've found a way to make them both work pretty easily.
>That said, if one of the central fucking themes is "we're not
>giving you what you expect, we're changing it up to keep it
>fresh, that's more important than the safety and the comfort
>of nostalgia"... then I also get why they made some of the
>timeline choices they did and casting decisions they did.

Apparently, The Matrix Online is canon. And she desperately needed to put in another 4 to 5 minutes, to sum up what happened there better. Niobe was right there.

But yeah... I loved this movie.

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

The whole first act is The Matrix Remixed.

The finale was The Matrix Reworked.

lol

it has been about 6 years since the last cycle

As best as I can recall, she basically wrote The Bible in sci-fi, which is in and of itself a trope.

The similarities are, IMO, generic, at the absolute best.

I recently read that George Lucas tried to sue the creators of Battlestar Galactica for allegedly ripping off Star Wars, which I thought was hysterical since I had just seen Dune and saw how much of Star Wars was a blatant Dune ripoff.

But they all pull heavily from mythology.

Anyhow, far as I can tell, there's not much of a claim there.

There's also a white dude with a similar claim against the Matrix.

this shit was largely useless imo.

i *hated* the beginning with the whole gaming premise on top of the constant flood of callbacks and imagery from the past. and damn near the entire film is self-narration with the characters having to tell you what theyre doing, how it relates to the past matrix films and what everything means in general.

and 'bullet time' smh.

this is the perfect type of movie for a streaming service like hbo max tho. some optional content for an established franchise that most people wont mind wasting 2+ hours on in the comfort of their living room but would prolly be pissed if they had to go out a buy a movie ticket for.

its also a pretty persuasive argument for why people do reboots lol.

You are right.

Bullet time. Ha ha. smdh

I liked some of the ideas in it, even though they weren't really explored much. The sentients, the idea of how and why the Matrix was updated. Liked that they gave Trinity some personality.

SPOILER: What was with them fighting the Lost Boys from Hook?

>SPOILER: What was with them fighting the Lost Boys from Hook?

They were exile programs. Like Smith, they loathe Neo for empowering the Analyst to make the changes to the Matrix that deleted most of their kind and left the others obsolete.

Actual things on its mind. Actual great cinematography without that muddy digital sheen. Actual performances. Wachowski's a terrific director.

Won't be surprised if this movie gets the same treatment as the sequels: most people don't like them at first because they compare them to the one they liked... then a decade later, people watch and think, "holy shit, compared to what we have now, this is fucking dynamite." I'm choosing to buy stock now before the reassessment occurs, lol.

Give me gorgeous messy thoughtful studio filmmaking like this over safety, over nostalgia, over Netflixification seven days of the week and twice on Sundays. Even when I wasn't sure how I felt about a sequence, I was still thinking "goddamn, no clue where this is going, how fucking exciting is this??"

I thought this was really good. Much better than SW: TFA.

I liked how they handled the original trilogy and seemed to go in a more natural direction of that conclusion of a machine/sentient civil war.

I also liked how they touched on the modern day internet and misinformation creating your own reality, very well done.

Two questions:

1. What happened to Zion? Did the machines/sentiments destroy Zion to breach the peace in the first trilogy?

2. What happened to Smith at the end?

could've done without some of the quick shots of the OG franchise. A few would've been fine at the start, especially when Thomas (lol, loved when Jonathan Groff kept calling him that) is slowly losing his grasp on "reality", but they overused it IMO.
Still overall I really enjoyed it thanks to the meta-commentary and ending. Editing on some of the fight scenes was uneven but I really dug the bot attack scenes.

>Won't be surprised if this movie gets the same treatment as
>the sequels: most people don't like them at first because they
>compare them to the one they liked... then a decade later,
>people watch and think, "holy shit, compared to what we have
>now, this is fucking dynamite." I'm choosing to buy stock now
>before the reassessment occurs, lol.

Maybe I’m off base here, but I think current opinion is basically the same as it was at the time: Reloaded has some good stuff, but fumbled the ball, and Revolutions is trash.

This one might be better than Revolutions, but not by much.

>Give me gorgeous messy thoughtful studio filmmaking like this
>over safety, over nostalgia, over Netflixification seven days
>of the week and twice on Sundays. Even when I wasn't sure how
>I felt about a sequence, I was still thinking "goddamn, no
>clue where this is going, how fucking exciting is this??"

It’s really surprising that you consider this a breath of fresh air that doesn’t have too much nostalgia. I thought this movie couldn’t get out of it’s own way with the nostalgia. It was so bogged down in the original, it couldn’t tell a coherent story. They were literally playing the original Morpheus red pill scene over the new Morpheus red pill scene! I found myself rolling my eyes a lot.

>Maybe I’m off base here, but I think current opinion is
>basically the same as it was at the time: Reloaded has some
>good stuff, but fumbled the ball, and Revolutions is trash.

I’ve talked with a number of people who recently rewatched the sequels and found them to be a lot more thoughtful, engaging, and original than people gave them credit for at the time. I myself thought more or less what you said until the rewatch, and I like them both much, much more now than I did then.

>This one might be better than Revolutions, but not by much.

The action’s definitely way better in Revolutions. Revolutions lowkey has some of the most impressive CGI work I’ve ever seen. I’d probably put them on the same tier, tbh.

>It’s really surprising that you consider this a breath of
>fresh air that doesn’t have too much nostalgia. I thought
>this movie couldn’t get out of it’s own way with the
>nostalgia. It was so bogged down in the original, it
>couldn’t tell a coherent story. They were literally playing
>the original Morpheus red pill scene over the new Morpheus red
>pill scene! I found myself rolling my eyes a lot.

See, I found most of that to be commentary on nostalgia— not just providing it for the sake of providing it, but examining what its impact is, examining how to retell (or continue to tell) existing stories, etc. This article on a quick Google search touches on a number of the things I liked in regard to this: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-matrix-resurrections-rejects-the-nostalgia-treadmill/

It doesn't lean so hard into the vapidly cryptic "I know because I must know" bullshit of the original trilogy, but some of that nonsense remains.

They still beat you over the head with certain things- Blue Glasses! GET IT? BECAUSE THE BLUE PILLS? GET IT?

Yeah, we fucking get it. And frankly, it's fucking stupid. Maybe, don't make the pills blue, and don't make your glasses blue. Maybe take all the obvious symbolism OUT of the fucking thing- and perhaps the machines would have a better time keeping him sedated.

But nope, it's more important to beat us over the head with the not-subtle symbolism. Seriously, they may as well went full on pop up video with that shit and put a giant arrow over it.

Simulatte! GET IT? AS IN SIMULATION? GET IT?

The fact that the core of this story is, essentially, that Neo and Trinity's love is the thing that's thwarting the machines plans is nauseating.

The two have such great chemistry, and it's a beautiful thing to watch, but from a storytelling standpoint, it's fucking Pollyanna. ALL WE NEED IS LOVE, FOLKS! Yes, the power of the love between these two humans is just too much for these machines to handle.

and the overly meta narrative in the beginning is just too much. A drop of that is good, but this shit was thick as mud. And that's the problem I have with this, so much is done with a hammer, when a scalpel is needed.

We get mention of this "greater power" that showed up at some point, but we never got any significant explanation for that. What was that greater power?

That isn't to say there aren't good ideas in here, There's some quality world building, particularly Io and the Sentients, which i expected given the Animatrix story. I liked the idea of Neo's Modal, and his creation of the Morpheus/Smith hybrid program, and the way some programs- Morpheus included- are able to use technology to take physical form in the real world.

I dig the Analyst as the successor to the Architect, and the scene with Neo in Trinity's garage was among the best in the entire series.

I like the idea of Neo and Trinity both being super powered beings within this world, with the ability to reshape the Matrix as they see fit, rainbows and all. But the fact that their love amounts to this magical force that keeps thwarting the machines isn't a particularly compelling story. It makes sense when they confine it to the choices we make as a result of that love, but that's not the extent of it. Their bond basically keeps the Matrix running. ZZZZZZZ

The OG trilogy holds up fairly well- except for that horrendous soundtrack- a few rambling monologues notwithstanding.

I may have a difference in opinion on repeated viewings, but this was a flat experience overall.

He purged the the Matrix 2.0, along with the Architect, Oracle and Merv. While doing so he rebuilt the Matrix to make it more appealing to people in it so they wouldn’t want to leave.

Like I said in my post, I’m not sure what happened to Zion and am a bit confused on that point. It seems like the machines destroyed it or plugged in it’s people back into the Matrix. I liked how Niobe said that Zion was trapped in its own Matrix of “us” vs “them” but it seemed like Morpheus believed in keeping the peace that Neo negotiated.

I wish they would have leaned more into the machine civil war and if they make a sequel I hope they go that route a bit more.

I think a lot of the inspiration for giving Neo a life as a game designer and selling The Matrix as a video game within The Matrix was to help them remind people you have to read a Wiki page to answer some of your questions.


Zion was destroyed near the end of the game; Niobe had built a New Zion deeper below the Earth which angered the machines and ended the truce between humans and machines that Neo initiated. Zion was destroyed and New Zion eventually abandoned.


I guess it's not clear how much of that is truly canon, but all of it is SUPPOSED to be.


They should've had Neo been more than, I dunno, not at all confused by Morpheus looking and sounding completely different and used that as a vehicle to explain some of the stuff from that game that matters here. Or, y'know, not spent all that time talking about strawberries and whatnot during the Niobe info-dump since she was directly involved in the loss of Zion but instead kind of papers over that part.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

>I think a lot of the inspiration for giving Neo a life as a
>game designer and selling The Matrix as a video game within
>The Matrix was to help them remind people you have to read a
>Wiki page to answer some of your questions.
>
>
>Zion was destroyed near the end of the game; Niobe had built a
>New Zion deeper below the Earth which angered the machines and
>ended the truce between humans and machines that Neo
>initiated. Zion was destroyed and New Zion eventually
>abandoned.
>
>
>I guess it's not clear how much of that is truly canon, but
>all of it is SUPPOSED to be.

As someone that played Matrix Online for a while and kept up with it until it was unplugged, I started wondering if Io was supposed to be New Zion. d=

>They should've had Neo been more than, I dunno, not at all
>confused by Morpheus looking and sounding completely different
>and used that as a vehicle to explain some of the stuff from
>that game that matters here. Or, y'know, not spent all that
>time talking about strawberries and whatnot during the Niobe
>info-dump since she was directly involved in the loss of Zion
>but instead kind of papers over that part.

The info dump was bad and it made me feel like Niobe was an unreliable narrator, which I wasn't sure if that was the point they were getting across.

As many agents they had attacking in close range, did ANYONE ever get hit?

I’m still trying to process my thoughts on the story, but the fight choreography in this was meh…

I like a lot of the ideas but the execution left a lot to be desired.


The worst thing about this movie, for me, is that it looks like a CW show with a ridiculous budget. The fight scenes are boring and something about the lighting often feels like it's trying to hide something, even if I think what it's ultimately doing is emulating video games' often overblown lighting, just because it's a new Matrix construct doesn't mean it needs to look like a cheap movie, right?


More to that point, this movie lacks some significant star power. Yahya has the most screen presence of the new kids on the block but spends half his time as magnetic beads.


It also didn't correct what I still think ruins Revolutions, which is that Neo is somehow connected to the Matrix while in the real world and that gives him actual super powers. But then I never thought Neo/Trinity was the most interesting part of the Matrix, it was just a well choreographed, perfectly shot action franchise to me with some wonky philosophy layered over it.


But you read about why Wachowski eventually agreed to make this movie or even wrote it in the first place and you kind of get it: the sentiment and the nostalgia is very sincere and you can feel that, though I'd also wager the cynicism of the first act doesn't really prime the audience for that. Plus it's hard to stay interested in a movie that's both exhausted by its own existence but too attached to its memories to do anything truly revolutionary with them.


Soft 3/5 for me.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

It was well cast, and I liked how much time they spent plugged into the matrix, but that’s about all I can say. The meta/self-referential shit was insanely annoying, as was everyone fanboying out in front of Neo/Anderson. Do you have to continuously flashback and reference EVERY famous line? Ugh.

Plus whenever something changed in an action sequence they cut to someone saying "He's doing XXX now!!" because there was no fucking way to know what changed. It's like when a new cast member on SNL walks on stage in a suit and make-up and the other character in the scene says "Hi - Donald Rumsfeld and Zbigniew Brzezinski - what are you doing at this youth basketball game??"

And I never ONCE thought that Neo or Trinity were in ANY danger EVER. Only when the horde swarmed that one SUV I thought that maybe some consequences might happen - but never to Neo or Trinity.

And visually boring as heck.

Completely unnecessary movie that got me to watch it.

>Plus whenever something changed in an action sequence they
>cut to someone saying "He's doing XXX now!!" because there was
>no fucking way to know what changed.

Show, don’t tell. It’s a wonderful rule most filmmakers should follow. “Bullet time” was cool in 99 because it didn’t have a bunch of people sitting around talking about “bullet time.” In fact, I think it’s kinda weird for that phrase to even exist in this universe.

>And I never ONCE thought that Neo or Trinity were in ANY
>danger EVER. Only when the horde swarmed that one SUV I
>thought that maybe some consequences might happen - but never
>to Neo or Trinity.

Honestly I was hoping one of them would die just so that SOMETHING would change and set this franchise in an unexpected direction.

That was my biggest takeaway. Outside of that, I kept checking how much time was left on the movie every 20 minutes.

saw the first one dolo in high school and made it a tradition. i liked the trilogy. but this shit was not it.

like somebody said above too meta, too many callbacks. the fighting and cgi werent great, some of the story was cheesy as shit.

agree on the chemistry between keannu and ol girl though. that still works.

that most viewers do

it's a weird story about coming to accept yourself, and all the rest is fluff that doesn't matter, to them

y'all are trying to find out what happened in the machine war


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

No more Wachowskis IMO. I have no faith at all that they- one or both- can deliver a Matrix that appeals beyond their die hard fans.

They need a fresh approach to this franchise, but one that still builds on this world and story.

Otherwise, this will just be another Terminator, sequel after sequel that just doesn't work.

I get that the Wachowski brand REALLY works for some people.

But there are so many more of us who love the core elements of this franchise, and would like to see them put together in a fresh way.

Resurrections was an opportunity to do that, and it missed, IMO, by a lot. IMO it deserves better than what its, erm, architects have designed.

Give someone else the reins who will do something cool that’s in the spirit of the original, but is not so married to “the prophecy” and all that bullshit.

>No more Wachowskis IMO. I have no faith at all that they- one
>or both- can deliver a Matrix that appeals beyond their die
>hard fans.

...except here, you've unintentionally nailed it. THAT'S the point. these stories are deeply personal to them and there is no desire for 'appeal' beyond "this is the story i want to tell". And that's what I love about the film... "fan service" has ruined so much of franchise movie making, imo

>They need a fresh approach to this franchise, but one that
>still builds on this world and story.

no, they don't. they are artists and their 'need' is to use their voice. their work just happened to be wildly popular and loved by many. they (or at least Lana) told you exactly that in the first 30 minutes of the film.

>Otherwise, this will just be another Terminator, sequel after
>sequel that just doesn't work.

and Lana is fine w/that. It works for her.

>I get that the Wachowski brand REALLY works for some people.
>
>But there are so many more of us who love the core elements of
>this franchise, and would like to see them put together in a
>fresh way.

again, they aren't about 'fan service'

>Resurrections was an opportunity to do that, and it missed,
>IMO, by a lot. IMO it deserves better than what its, erm,
>architects have designed.

an artists' work deserves only the artists' voice, vision and execution. that's it

imagine if you released your music and it was deeply personal subject matter and folks start telling you the opportunities you missed and what your songs deserved, etc

i mean even if you didn't mind, and you choose to make the music your fans like or want, that's a choice you make...not all artists should have to choose that.

d


"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

>...except here, you've unintentionally nailed it. THAT'S the
>point. these stories are deeply personal to them and there is
>no desire for 'appeal' beyond "this is the story i want to
>tell". And that's what I love about the film... "fan service"
>has ruined so much of franchise movie making, imo

The Terminator franchise comparison is honestly a pro-Wachowski one imo, because the second that sci-fi franchise was yanked from the original creatives, they all became increasingly derivative, generic, and lame— constant ploys to try to appeal to the fans of the original, none of which worked. I actually liked the third well enough, because it moved as its own thing… but enough people didn’t think it stood up on its own that they kept switching directors and creatives, and now it’s just one of the most consistently bad franchises around.

Even if the Matrix sequels don’t work for some— and I definitely get that they don’t— they at least aren’t empty catering to mass appeal. They continue to build and defy expectation, so even if the moves don’t all work, they still are in the spirit of the original. (I also just don’t think Keanu comes back without a Wachowski attached, in which case there’s not really a point to the franchise’s continuation imo.)

I think most of this is a moot point anyway, as I don’t think WB will green light more Matrix movies, and I don’t think Keanu will star in more, so it seems this’ll be the end either way. But I admire all the gambles the Wachowskis, especially Lana, took every step of the way— even if I also get why some aren’t gonna be on board with those choices.

>The Terminator franchise comparison is honestly a
>pro-Wachowski one imo,

Not at all.

>because the second that sci-fi
>franchise was yanked from the original creatives, they all
>became increasingly derivative, generic, and lame— constant
>ploys to try to appeal to the fans of the original, none of
>which worked.

I mean, all of that is largely what this was.

There's no guarantee that a different director would nail it. They could make it worse. But this was seriously flawed, and more closely resembles the post-Cameron films in terms of quality than it does T2 or The Matrix.

Reloaded/Revolutions were tepidly received at the time, and while you said that some of that sentiment has changed in certain circles, I'd argue that the broader reaction to everything after the initial outing is still much closer to the response to T3/Salvation/Genysis than it is The Matrix or T1.

It's not quite as bad, but it's still closer to that.

I actually liked the third well enough, because
>it moved as its own thing… but enough people didn’t think
>it stood up on its own that they kept switching directors and
>creatives, and now it’s just one of the most consistently
>bad franchises around.

I'm certainly not proposing that they take that route.

But finding someone to helm the franchise going forward, I think would be a great move the for franchise.

>Even if the Matrix sequels don’t work for some— and I
>definitely get that they don’t— they at least aren’t
>empty catering to mass appeal.

They don't need to *cater to mass appeal* to create something that *has* mass appeal. It just needs better storytelling, and perhaps a greater focus on additional characters.

Neo and Trinity are fantastic, and I love their love story- I just think the whole "your love is what's keeping us from maintaining control! speech was cheesy and creatively lazy.

Show, don't tell. Show us, through action, how their love for one another does that. And not in a "my kiss brings you back from the dead" way either. The way that was presented was clumsy.

But you can strike that critique entirely; the franchise is in danger of becoming the X Men franchise here, leaning way too heavily on the gravitas of Xavier, Magneto, and Wolverine, long after they were firmly established as the center of those films, while merely dabbling with much of the rest of the roster, much less the plots themselves.

They continue to build and defy
>expectation, so even if the moves don’t all work, they still
>are in the spirit of the original. (I also just don’t think
>Keanu comes back without a Wachowski attached, in which case
>there’s not really a point to the franchise’s continuation
>imo.)

I couldn't disagree more. It's the Matrix, after all.

The Matrix Rebooted sells that without issue. Moreover, there have been multiple iterations of The One. The lore they built up lends itself quite organically to such a move.

Shit, after that ending, it would be easy enough to say that the machines, fearful that things had grown too far out of their control, shut the entire thing down and killed the bodies of Neo and Trinity, destroyed Io, the works.

How and why the Matrix gets rebooted would then be the challenge, of course.

Sure, I'm just spitballing, but I think there's an objective case that there are plenty of perfectly plausible directions it could take from here, even if they scrapped everything we've seen because the actors refused to return.

>I think most of this is a moot point anyway, as I don’t
>think WB will green light more Matrix movies, and I don’t
>think Keanu will star in more, so it seems this’ll be the
>end either way. But I admire all the gambles the Wachowskis,
>especially Lana, took every step of the way— even if I also
>get why some aren’t gonna be on board with those choices.

No needling here, I promise. This isn't me poking at you for your fandom. Frankly, I love that sort of bond between an artist and their fans.

But ball breaking aside, what was the gamble here, from a creative standpoint? I'm sure there are personal, financial, reputational, etc gambles at play, So much of this was, to me, The Matrix Retread and Rehashed. Outside of what was a truly compelling exposition scene with The Analyst (my misgivings about how the Neo and Trinity love story factored there aside), there wasn't a lot that felt like they were challenging themselves creatively here.

>>No more Wachowskis IMO. I have no faith at all that they-
>one
>>or both- can deliver a Matrix that appeals beyond their die
>>hard fans.
>
>...except here, you've unintentionally nailed it. THAT'S the
>point. these stories are deeply personal to them and there is
>no desire for 'appeal' beyond "this is the story i want to
>tell".

That's all good and well. But none of that has any bearing whatsoever on my thoughts and perception of the movie, and what's I think is best for the franchise going forward- and the Wachowskis ain't it.

And that's what I love about the film... "fan service"
>has ruined so much of franchise movie making, imo

Broader appeal and fan service are not the same thing. I'm not asking for fan service at all. In fact, I'd argue that this was heavy on fan service. It just wasn't executed particularly well, as is the case with the bulk of the Wachowski catalog.

>>They need a fresh approach to this franchise, but one that
>>still builds on this world and story.
>
>no, they don't.

Yes, they do.

>they are artists and their 'need' is to use
>their voice.

We're talking about different "theys" here.

My they is Warner Bros, and they can choose not to run with a Wachowski on the next run. I think they- WB- need to move forward with a different writer and director with a fresh approach.

their work just happened to be wildly popular and
>loved by many. they (or at least Lana) told you exactly that
>in the first 30 minutes of the film.

Yes, and it was one of the many serious drawbacks to this.

>>Otherwise, this will just be another Terminator, sequel
>after
>>sequel that just doesn't work.
>
>and Lana is fine w/that. It works for her.

That's generally true of most work by most artists, even those who's work is panned.

My enjoyment, thoughts, and opinions on a film have absolutely nothing to do with what the creator of that art wants. Nor should it be.

>>I get that the Wachowski brand REALLY works for some people.
>>
>>But there are so many more of us who love the core elements
>of
>>this franchise, and would like to see them put together in a
>>fresh way.
>
>again, they aren't about 'fan service'

Resurrections was full of fan service though. Call back after call back after call back after call back after call back.

The only "fan service" I'm asking for here is something.... better. Because this ain't it, and Lana being good with it has absolutely nothing to do with my view of it.

Moreover, I listed plenty of things I liked and disliked, and none of it had anything to do with wanting fan service.

>>Resurrections was an opportunity to do that, and it missed,
>>IMO, by a lot. IMO it deserves better than what its, erm,
>>architects have designed.
>
>an artists' work deserves only the artists' voice, vision and
>execution. that's it

I disagree completely. This take takes the fans- supporters- of said art entirely out of the equation.

The second we engage a work of art, it becomes ours, individually.

Not in a copyright sense, but when I hear a song, watch a movie, read a book, it's mine, and I get to react to it however I react- up to and including saying what I think should or shouldn't have been done.

At that point, I decide what it deserves, not the artist.

it's not as though the artist is under any obligation to abide by my predilections, but by that same token, my brain has no obligation to the artists vision or voice.

>imagine if you released your music and it was deeply personal
>subject matter and folks start telling you the opportunities
>you missed and what your songs deserved, etc

I'd have absolutely no issue with this. They're entitled to hold whatever opinion they want.

I'd consider myself lucky enough to have fans passionate enough about my work to feel and express disappointment.

Because that means I'd have set some sort of expectation, which means I'd have at least laid the groundwork for something that mattered to people.

That doesn't mean I'd agree with every critique or suggestion, anymore than any artist would agree with even one of my critiques or suggestions of their work.

Regardless of how I felt about their perspective, that doesn't for a second change my view that they are absolutely entitled to express those perceptions, even if that perception is that my work was dog shit and I should keep a day job.

>i mean even if you didn't mind, and you choose to make the
>music your fans like or want, that's a choice you make...not
>all artists should have to choose that.

That's pretty far from my stance here.

Me expressing my thoughts and opinions on a work of art in no way suggests that the artist must, should, or should even consider doing their art through the lense of my thoughts and opinions.

What I/you/they/we think should be, has no real bearing on what the artist should decide to do with their art.

Even if I said every artist must do exactly what their fans say, that's ulimately benign, as I have no actual ability to enforce that.

It would still be nothing more than my subjective opinion on their subjective art.

That said, once an artist releases their work to the world, that work is subject to the thoughts, perspectives, opinions, interpretations, suggestions of every eye and ear that so much as encounters an ad for that work.

>That's all good and well. But none of that has any bearing
>whatsoever on my thoughts and perception of the movie, and
>what's I think is best for the franchise going forward- and
>the Wachowskis ain't it.

>I disagree completely. This take takes the fans- supporters-
>of said art entirely out of the equation.
>
>The second we engage a work of art, it becomes ours,
>individually.
>
>Not in a copyright sense, but when I hear a song, watch a
>movie, read a book, it's mine, and I get to react to it
>however I react- up to and including saying what I think
>should or shouldn't have been done.
>
>At that point, I decide what it deserves, not the artist.


Vs This:

>What I/you/they/we think should be, has no real bearing on
>what the artist should decide to do with their art.
>
>Even if I said every artist must do exactly what their fans
>say, that's ulimately benign, as I have no actual ability to
>enforce that.
>
>It would still be nothing more than my subjective opinion on
>their subjective art.
>
>That said, once an artist releases their work to the world,
>that work is subject to the thoughts, perspectives, opinions,
>interpretations, suggestions of every eye and ear that so much
>as encounters an ad for that work.

It just feels like you're simultaneously saying your opinion does AND doesn't matter.

that you both should AND shouldn't have a say on what someone's art is.

d



"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

>>That's all good and well. But none of that has any bearing
>>whatsoever on my thoughts and perception of the movie, and
>>what's I think is best for the franchise going forward- and
>>the Wachowskis ain't it.
>
>>I disagree completely. This take takes the fans- supporters-
>>of said art entirely out of the equation.
>>
>>The second we engage a work of art, it becomes ours,
>>individually.
>>
>>Not in a copyright sense, but when I hear a song, watch a
>>movie, read a book, it's mine, and I get to react to it
>>however I react- up to and including saying what I think
>>should or shouldn't have been done.
>>
>>At that point, I decide what it deserves, not the artist.

Summary: We're all entitled to hold and express our own subjective opinions on the art we consume.

>Vs This:
>
>>What I/you/they/we think should be, has no real bearing on
>>what the artist should decide to do with their art.
>>
>>Even if I said every artist must do exactly what their fans
>>say, that's ulimately benign, as I have no actual ability
>to
>>enforce that.
>>
>>It would still be nothing more than my subjective opinion on
>>their subjective art.
>>
>>That said, once an artist releases their work to the world,
>>that work is subject to the thoughts, perspectives,
>opinions,
>>interpretations, suggestions of every eye and ear that so
>much
>>as encounters an ad for that work.

Summary: ....but I have no right or ability to force an artist to bend to my will.

I can literally think whatever I want, and to a rather large degree, say whatever I want.

That i

>It just feels like you're simultaneously saying your opinion
>does AND doesn't matter.

Yes, in two completely diffrent contexts.

>that you both should AND shouldn't have a say on what
>someone's art is.

Again, these aren't mutually exclusive.

I have every right to say what someone's art is and what i think about that art.

I don't have a right- or ability- to force them to do as I say.

Frankly, I can illustrate this by applying the core of your initial response to this very conversation:

Everything you said was an opinion and critique of my opinions and critiques.

You're 100% entitled to express your thoughts and opinions on my own.

This is fundamentally true.

Yet, you don't have the right, authority, or ability to actually force my hand to express different thoughts or opinions.

This is also fundamentally true. Both things are true, and applicable to an entirely different context.

Your response is conflating the right and ability to express my subjective opinion regarding subjective art with the right and ability to force the artist to adhere to my thoughts and opinions. Conversely, I drew and explained the distinction between them.

Virtually everything is up for discussion, debate, and opinion. Even an objective fact, within certain contexts-i.e, the scientific method, etc- is up for that.

There's nothing sacred or untouchable about a work of art.

Particularly a work of art that expressly exists as a vehicle of public consumption to make money. That, as the Keymaker might say, is it's purpose.

The only art that isn't subject to this, is that which hasn't been presented to someone outside the artist.

i think what also should be stated is that i'm never attempting to deny your right to an opinion on anything

in fact, my entire point was around subjectivity. sometimes the way you state your opinion seems to imply (yes, i'm owning that its my own perception) that its fact, instead of opinion.

"the movie was done wrong and could have been better" is totally different than "i didn't like it and would have if it was different"

either way, its all good. thanks for explaining.

d

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

Qualifiers.

I view these discussions through the general pretense that that's an unspoken given.

Sure, I’ll pepper a discussion with “IMO” and “I think” “from where I stand” as a force of habit and semantic necessity, but I think charitable listening takes those qualifiers as a given, because the mere act of making the statement already implies that the statement is the opinion of the person making the statement.

I think this is especially true in discussions of art, which is always subjective, until we arrive at a point of objective fact.

Far as an artists work, I'm 100% behind the artist doing whatever they see fit- while still being 100% for people giving their feedback. It's largely a symbiotic relationship, which I think gets closer as the reach and impact of that work increases.

For the record, I didn’t think you were denying me my right to my opinion. But these are things that get sorted out in the course of the discussion, of course.

Feels like WB came to the Wachowski's first cause they were gonna make it without them anyway and Lana reluctantly said yes.

Then threw shots at WB.

and it was very hard to take the rest of the movie too seriously after that.

>Feels like WB came to the Wachowski's first cause they were
>gonna make it without them anyway and Lana reluctantly said
>yes.
>
>Then threw shots at WB.
>
>

with all the Sense8 actors in it

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

one wachowskiverse with the sequels and the matrix online

while the other one is the original and the animatrix and nothing else

it would solve everyone's issues

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It was cranky and messy, which I usually love, but what happily surprised me after the reviews was the relative coherence of the story. I was prepared for that to be largely abandoned and I thought what was left was a love story that was pretty congruent to the central principles of the original trilogy.

I also thought Wachowski was gentler and more incisive with her crankiness than I expected. There's a genuine ambivalence here about the way that art (and commercial art in particular) means taking an intimate, unknowable experience and making it universal so that everybody can latch onto the metaphor as an engine for the story through its emotional exhaust. She seems honored and grateful to know that the trilogy touched all the alienated weirdos who saw themselves in that work, but Solondz-level guarded about the breadth of people who can make that connection.

That's an attitude that she gets to play out in film because she's the one who has genius and we're a bunch of dipshits on the internet, though I can understand if people don't enjoy engaging it that way. Though there's been an awful lot of head-scratching trying to explain a move that's existed at least as long as the second volume of Don Quijote. Artists don't like it when their work is co-opted and they've been making pretty on-the-nose art about that for at least five hundred years now. I think the more accessible thing that she's doing, though, is poking at the idea of 1:1 metaphor as some kind of guiding purpose. I was in grad school when Reloaded and Revolutions came out and it was insane fun to talk about neoplatonism and what it means to return to the source and whether this was an Augustinian vision or if the anti-somatic thing was a bit firmer so that antagonistic dualism needs to be read into the whole thing and now I'm 20 years older and I desperately don't care. Or, rather, I don't care about (The) Wachowski(s) ability to faithfully re-create ancient thought systems in a modern metaphor of a robot apocalypse. I care about what kind of truth those systems can enhance in this weird, personal story of the contradiction between painful inevitability and incredible liberation of becoming who you actually are. Maybe other people didn't need to be reminded of that, but I did - and it was cool to see it with some characters that I've loved for literal decades now and some wicked fight scenes.

Articulated a lot of my sentiment better than I could've (per usual). Glad you shared.

Didn't love it. Didn't hate it. Absolutely didn't need to be made, but its just fine on streaming.

The first part was a little too tongue in cheek, almost to self parody. But I liked it better than the second part, as the action just was...boring? I get everyone is older, and the lack of major wire work was evident, but the choreography and CGI were just.. lacking. I did like NPH (though I get why many may not).

It reminds me of The Last Jedi, in that it's not as good ad some will say, but nowhere as bad as many will say either. Hopefully they won't make another; there's really no need.

The old cranky part of me just think that new big movies just love to throw in as many ideas as they can and don't really care about any of it making that much sense when you think about it more than the second its on screen.

I just expect for worlds to have rules, internal logic and make sense. All the rules seemed to be made up from scene to scene.

The idea of Neo being somehow placed back into the matrix was a good one. I could have dealt with 2 hours of that (without all the self-referential Black 2 the Future 2 stuff).

This was just a mess with fight sequences with no stakes.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

The “It was all just a video game” of it all felt like a disrespectful dumbing down to someone that would watch the whole trilogy during a work day. NPH felt like a villain from The Incredibles.