• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Wachowskis' THE MATRIX 4 starring Keanu Reeves (5/21/21)
4 4

462 posts in this topic

On 9/14/2021 at 11:04 AM, D2 said:

I see what you are saying.

 

The concern I have with callbacks and references is that, from history, movies and franchises become so consumed by making sure you are on your nostalgia trip, that they don't move PAST the callbacks and references. The movie is just a trailer for all things we already know.

You can have a Matrix movie and not pay homage to allllllll of the things that made the Matrix movie a Matrix movie.

Even further to your point, again, The Last Jedi, was a movie that had Star Wars elements in it, but didn't spend its whole time reminding you what movie you were watching.

It is the difference between watching an original movie in a series, or just a retelling of an old story.

There were far too many callbacks and references in this trailer for my liking. That was my concern. There were so many scenes in the trailer that, although commented on how we are back in the same world again, stepped further into the idea that, we are just treading old water.

Do we really need to see the same sparring room routine?
Follow the white rabbit. Really? Is that the only way to do it? Is that really vital to the Matrix mythos? Feels lazy writing to me.
Arms crossed while walking and shooting two guns... haven't seen that before.
Touching the mirror that ripples into water... I felt like the mirror was just, there... in the first movie, and Neo happened to touch it. Not that, it's part of the whole mythos... it's the same Star Wars mistake where Luke used a training ball on the Falcon in A New Hope... as though it was just, lying around... and now, all Jedi train with those exact same balls? Stupid.
Neo stopping bullets (which was cool the first 2 times, but a problem with that ability is it removes all sense of danger)

That's what I am talking about. 

I also see what you're saying.  It's basically impossible to do "better" than the original Matrix, since the innovations in that movie like freeze frame 360 and "bullet-time" were combined with the cutting-edge of computing/AI sci-fi at the time.

As some have mentioned before, and as I joked years ago, the concept that we're all living in a simulation of reality is less sci-fi every day... people are convinced that others are just NPCs, since they seem to think they're actually like the strawmen arguments being used.

The technology of "Play-Doh Neo" fighting a bunch of Smiths in Matrix 2 looks about as realistic as the Lego movie in a world where real-time deepfake videos are probably already happening.

Statement:  The original Matrix combined modern technology and innovative filming techniques with ancient philosophy at the turn of the millennium in a new way.

Most of the words in that statement are either a tall order or literally impossible, no matter what they do this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 12:29 PM, valiantman said:

I also see what you're saying.  It's basically impossible to do "better" than the original Matrix, since the innovations in that movie like freeze frame 360 and "bullet-time" were combined with the cutting-edge of computing/AI sci-fi at the time.

As some have mentioned before, and as I joked years ago, the concept that we're all living in a simulation of reality is less sci-fi every day... people are convinced that others are just NPCs, since they seem to think they're actually like the strawmen arguments being used.

The technology of "Play-Doh Neo" fighting a bunch of Smiths in Matrix 2 looks about as realistic as the Lego movie in a world where real-time deepfake videos are probably already happening.

Statement:  The original Matrix combined modern technology and innovative filming techniques with ancient philosophy at the turn of the millennium in a new way.

Most of the words in that statement are either a tall order or literally impossible, no matter what they do this time around.

lol!

That was actually my thought too... I know the Matrix was literally earth shattering at the time, and it really is pretty unrealistic to think that this movie could quite possibly have that same world impact. It was more of a hope, to me... because rarely do I find a film so impactful in my life. Movies are entertaining, but when they actually impact me, it sticks.

I guess the reason too why I had such high hopes was because I know in writing the screenplay (presumably, they could be lying, or I just heard wrong entirely) but it was 10 years in the making. It took them 10 years to write out that and that makes sense to me. It's layered properly.

I've actually dissected the -script with Michael Hauge's story structure before and the original Matrix is nearly perfect. It's actually shocking how well designed it is from a structure perspective. The only thing that I feel flawed it in is Trinity and Neo's relationship/chemistry! LOL! And I think personally that's due to 1) they could have used a scene or two more of some kind of sexual tension and 2) I don't think Reaves and Moss have any actual true chemistry together, so faking it seems obvious. They felt like they might have more now that they are older...

Anyway, I am ranting, but I truly feel that The Matrix as a whole, the original film, is one of the best possibly crafted films of all time. I've tried writing for 20 years, and I suck. I'm better, but I suck. From reading, practicing, and researching how to write, the one thing I've gained is an appreciation for when it's done so expertly.

I had my hopes up with this one, the 4th... I still do, this trailer is whatever to me, and I tried to temper my expectations, but it's hard! It's The Matrix!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 7:23 AM, Scam Likely said:

What’s considered a flop though?

Movie sucks for fans yet huge box office success?

Movie is great but bombs at the box office?

I judge all films by the content with no regard to what it cost to make or what it brings in. The financials are interesting to many and I’m not knocking those discussions but I’m the same way I was in the 80’s. When watching Jaws or Raiders in the theater, never once did I wonder how much it cost to make those movies. Or if they did well in China. 

Lets agree to go by the most unbiased method I can think of-rotten tomatoes audience score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 1:36 AM, Bosco685 said:

Here's where you miss the point. I'm not making repeat statements either way of its failure or success. I'm just asking questions about the content we have seen so far.

So why would I need to proclaim I was wrong? Meanwhile, you posting the same message back-to-back 'it's going to flop' within a one-hour spot which comes across as if that's all you want to convey. We got your point the first time.

It's ok not many people can admit they are wrong ever.  It's not some rare thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 11:49 AM, D2 said:

I guess the reason too why I had such high hopes was because I know in writing the screenplay (presumably, they could be lying, or I just heard wrong entirely) but it was 10 years in the making. It took them 10 years to write out that and that makes sense to me. It's layered properly.

I have a somewhat naive view of rich artists/creators/writers because I logically know they don't have to make another dollar to be "set for life", so it makes me want to believe that they don't bother doing things that aren't worth their time.

In reality, we know there are some very rich people who will churn out any drivel/derivative work (or have it ghost written/created for them) and stick their name on it knowing it will make more money, but that seems to be a statement on personal greed rather than a statement on "artist needing to create".  Besides the need to create, "starving artists" also have a financial need, and those financial needs may be desperate.  Some part of that changes after they reach success.  Tom Hanks is a good example.  He needed to work, so he put on a dress and co-starred in a sit-com called Bosom Buddies.  By the time he became Tom Hanks, Oscar winner, he didn't have to work again.  What does he work on now?  Projects he actually believes in.  He doesn't just put out Forrest Gump 2: The Gumpening, he makes things that matter to him.  Clint Eastwood and Jim Carrey seem to be the same way.  It doesn't seem to be about money anymore for them, so what they do next is interesting in a different way.

The Wachowskis don't need to do anything else, but Lana is doing this.  I want to believe it's because she believes it's worth her time and she has something to create out of passion, since we can be reasonably sure it's not out of need.

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 1:36 AM, Bosco685 said:

Here's where you miss the point. I'm not making repeat statements either way of its failure or success. I'm just asking questions about the content we have seen so far.

So why would I need to proclaim I was wrong? Meanwhile, you posting the same message back-to-back 'it's going to flop' within a one-hour spot which comes across as if that's all you want to convey. We got your point the first time.

I shall lay out the reasons why I know it will flop.
From the trailer:
Omg its that black cat and stuff that was in the first movie!
Omg its the white rabbit remember the white rabbit and stuff?
Omg they dont know each other but 'have we met?' because they really know each other and stuff!
Omg the red and blue pills and stuff!!
Rehash of the kung fu dojo scene.
Rehashes up the yin yang.

The fact that the sequels got progressively worse.  
There is nothing fresh or new about this movie.  It shall flop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 1:04 PM, valiantman said:

I have a somewhat naive view of rich artists/creators/writers because I logically know they don't have to make another dollar to be "set for life", so it makes me want to believe that they don't bother doing things that aren't worth their time.

In reality, we know there are some very rich people who will churn out any drivel/derivative work (or have it ghost written/created for them) and stick their name on it knowing it will make more money, but that seems to be a statement on personal greed rather than a statement on "artist needing to create".  Besides the need to create, "starving artists" also have a financial need, and those financial needs may be desperate.  Some part of that changes after they reach success.  Tom Hanks is a good example.  He needed to work, so he put on a dress and co-starred in a sit-com called Bosom Buddies.  By the time he became Tom Hanks, Oscar winner, he didn't have to work again.  What does he work on now?  Projects he actually believes in.  He doesn't just put out Forrest Gump 2: The Gumpening, he makes things that matter to him.  Clint Eastwood and Jim Carrey seem to be the same way.  It doesn't seem to be about money anymore for them, so what they do next is interesting in a different way.

The Wachowskis don't need to do anything else, but Lana is doing this.  I want to believe it's because she believes it's worth her time and she has something to create out of passion, since we can be reasonably sure it's not out of need.

Idk, man, Adam Sandler keeps making those movies with all of his friends in them. They're no good, and I'm sure that he doesn't need the money, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 1:19 PM, kav said:

I shall lay out the reasons why I know it will flop.
From the trailer:
Omg its that black cat and stuff that was in the first movie!
Omg its the white rabbit remember the white rabbit and stuff?
Omg they dont know each other but 'have we met?' because they really know each other and stuff!
Omg the red and blue pills and stuff!!
Rehash of the kung fu dojo scene.
Rehashes up the yin yang.

The fact that the sequels got progressively worse.  
There is nothing fresh or new about this movie.  It shall flop.  

Seems like more of the same...

On 9/11/2021 at 5:43 PM, kav said:

looks like a dud to me.

On 9/11/2021 at 10:33 PM, kav said:

Matrix one was great.  2 and 3 were duds.  expecting 4 to be great is silly.

On 9/11/2021 at 11:08 PM, kav said:

Matrix 1-he's THE ONE and he destroys agent smith!
Matrix 2 and 3-he's THE ONE but other guys can fight him to a standstill so he's really number two and agent smith isnt destroyed anymore in fact there are infinite agent smiths. :facepalm:

On 9/11/2021 at 11:09 PM, kav said:

matrix 4 will be a dud trust me on this.

But at least you got another 'it's a dud' out of your system

(:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 10:38 AM, Bosco685 said:

I know. But then you finally come around and admit it. You've come a long ways.

:baiting:

I have consistently admitted when I am wrong on the boards.   I havent come anywhere I have always been here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 10:42 AM, Bosco685 said:

Seems like more of the same...

But at least you got another 'it's a dud' out of your system

(:

You asked me about the content we have seen so far and i answered it point by point.  I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 1:44 PM, kav said:

You asked me about the content we have seen so far and i answered it point by point.  I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

I get your passive-aggressive intent. How dare someone note you are just repeating the same intent.

But meanwhile, don't teeter into assuming I cannot comprehend something. Heck, I already have your logic figured out.

Edited by Bosco685
logically it is logic ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 12:20 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Idk, man, Adam Sandler keeps making those movies with all of his friends in them. They're no good, and I'm sure that he doesn't need the money, either.

I covered that when I said: 

Quote

In reality, we know there are some very rich people who will churn out any drivel/derivative work (or have it ghost written/created for them) and stick their name on it knowing it will make more money

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally thought it would be a dud, because most of the movies that came out during Covid or on hbo, were pretty much that. And I agree that 2 and 3 were not as great as 1. The trailer changed my mind (in a good way). And I for one, would expect that a good sequel would reference or homage prior installments.

Edited by bronze_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 11:31 AM, bronze_rules said:

I originally thought it would be a dud, because most of the movies that came out during Covid or on hbo, were pretty much that. And I agree that 2 and 3 were not as great as 1. The trailer changed my mind (in a good way). And I for one, would expect that a good sequel would reference or homage prior installments.

Homage is one thing.  trying to recreate the first film, which is sure what it looks like, is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 3:00 PM, kav said:

Homage is one thing.  trying to recreate the first film, which is sure what it looks like, is another.

But is it just repurposing the same concept from the original movie, or following through on the concept shared by The Architect how the Matrix functions?

 

So since we can assume the Matrix has been rebooted, could this then by why Neo as a reset character is going through the same learning events again at this stage? Maybe. We won't know all the details until the full movie is released. But my assumption is this is most probably what is occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4