The Matrix
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
I know "not" of these Matrix sequels of which everyone speaks. I only recall the first Matrix movie, hoping for a sequel and then never getting one.
Okay, okay.
The sequels suffered from one thing, and something many movie sequels suffer from. Not knwoing the "recipe" that made the first one work. The first Matrix movie has the right balance between the "pseudo philosophy", "action", "SFX Wowery," characters and the connective pieces to make it all work.
Then Reloaded came along. Sigh. It semed to be a lot more "SFX Wowery, that's less impressive than the original movie (The Burly Brawl scene), and waaaayyyyy to much "pseudo philosophy."
Further more the movies lost sight of where they wanted to go and the whole damn point of it. Neo's goal was to free human-kind, those in the Matrix, and stop the machines. What happened? A stalemate. Wow. Go.... humanity?
Also the movie began to break any "logic" in its own rules by giving Neo his powers outside of The Matrix! What the fuck? And letting Agent Smith take a human body? The hell?!
And don't get me started on the completel stupidity that was Revolutions.
And the ending battle between Smith and Neo.
It would've made vastly more sense for "Xion" to be another part of "The Matrix" the, "recycling bin" if you will and every so often The Architect has to "Delete all contents in the recycling bin", hince the fight for Xion, and the need for Neo who would guide the next batch of recyclin bin contents. Neo would discover this and way to completely break out of the Matrix and discover something more sinister goin on in the "real world" which a) would be vastly more hospitable for human repopulation and wouldn't use the human bodies as the rather poor batteries we'd really make.
It just sucks that movie as original as The Matrix ended it's run in such a spectacular manner and, in part, I blame the whole "make a really long sequel and break it into two movies released within a year of one another" idea of making sequels.
See also: The Pirates of the Caribbean and, in part, the Back to the Future sequels. (I think both suffer a bit from the "make two sequels at the same time" thing.)
What's funny is when my best friend got back from his two-year mission in South America (per Mormon/LDS tradition/rules) and he was so excited to see the first Star Wars prequel. He barely got past the opening crawl before his excitement faded like a boner in the light of Rosie O'Donnel in fetishwear in "Exit to Eden." But he enjoyed other movies he missed that showed him, most of all The Matrix and he couldn't wait for the sequels.
And then Reloaded came out.
Sigh.
Okay, okay.
The sequels suffered from one thing, and something many movie sequels suffer from. Not knwoing the "recipe" that made the first one work. The first Matrix movie has the right balance between the "pseudo philosophy", "action", "SFX Wowery," characters and the connective pieces to make it all work.
Then Reloaded came along. Sigh. It semed to be a lot more "SFX Wowery, that's less impressive than the original movie (The Burly Brawl scene), and waaaayyyyy to much "pseudo philosophy."
Further more the movies lost sight of where they wanted to go and the whole damn point of it. Neo's goal was to free human-kind, those in the Matrix, and stop the machines. What happened? A stalemate. Wow. Go.... humanity?
Also the movie began to break any "logic" in its own rules by giving Neo his powers outside of The Matrix! What the fuck? And letting Agent Smith take a human body? The hell?!
And don't get me started on the completel stupidity that was Revolutions.
And the ending battle between Smith and Neo. It would've made vastly more sense for "Xion" to be another part of "The Matrix" the, "recycling bin" if you will and every so often The Architect has to "Delete all contents in the recycling bin", hince the fight for Xion, and the need for Neo who would guide the next batch of recyclin bin contents. Neo would discover this and way to completely break out of the Matrix and discover something more sinister goin on in the "real world" which a) would be vastly more hospitable for human repopulation and wouldn't use the human bodies as the rather poor batteries we'd really make.
It just sucks that movie as original as The Matrix ended it's run in such a spectacular manner and, in part, I blame the whole "make a really long sequel and break it into two movies released within a year of one another" idea of making sequels.
See also: The Pirates of the Caribbean and, in part, the Back to the Future sequels. (I think both suffer a bit from the "make two sequels at the same time" thing.)
What's funny is when my best friend got back from his two-year mission in South America (per Mormon/LDS tradition/rules) and he was so excited to see the first Star Wars prequel. He barely got past the opening crawl before his excitement faded like a boner in the light of Rosie O'Donnel in fetishwear in "Exit to Eden." But he enjoyed other movies he missed that showed him, most of all The Matrix and he couldn't wait for the sequels.
And then Reloaded came out.
Sigh.
One thing, a minor nitpick at best, is something I still don't understand about the first film. Neo is given the red pill to take, which will supposedly allow Morpheus and crew to locate Neo's real body. Also, certain characters are often seen using phone booths (within the Matrix) as an exit out of the system. I think they called it a 'hard line' or something like that.
But I had always assumed that within the Matrix, there is no physical location. The Matrix is an entirely constructed, virtual reality. It exists solely within the minds of those connected to it. So how can there be any kind of physical location within the Matrix that maps to an equivalent location in reality?
In a way, it's like the holodeck in Trek. Let's say that you go into a holodeck and call up a simulation of New York City. Since the holodeck is almost entirely virtual (although less so than the Matrix, since a holodeck actually is a place that you have to travel to before you can begin the simulation), you can't do something like stand in the middle of the holo-Times Square and have it directly correspond to a location on the Enterprise or wherever your holodeck happens to be...
I mean, if Neo (within the Matrix) takes the red pill, I don't understand why that means anything. It's not like there's a real red pill going into Neo's actual body. And why do characters have to use things like phone booths to leave the Matrix? Couldn't they just will themselves to leave? That would be no more or less 'real' than the booth angle.
But I had always assumed that within the Matrix, there is no physical location. The Matrix is an entirely constructed, virtual reality. It exists solely within the minds of those connected to it. So how can there be any kind of physical location within the Matrix that maps to an equivalent location in reality?
In a way, it's like the holodeck in Trek. Let's say that you go into a holodeck and call up a simulation of New York City. Since the holodeck is almost entirely virtual (although less so than the Matrix, since a holodeck actually is a place that you have to travel to before you can begin the simulation), you can't do something like stand in the middle of the holo-Times Square and have it directly correspond to a location on the Enterprise or wherever your holodeck happens to be...
I mean, if Neo (within the Matrix) takes the red pill, I don't understand why that means anything. It's not like there's a real red pill going into Neo's actual body. And why do characters have to use things like phone booths to leave the Matrix? Couldn't they just will themselves to leave? That would be no more or less 'real' than the booth angle.
He takes the pill so now he "thinks he's getting out" or something which causes his mind to "do something" which sets off the alarms or whatever in the pod-towers which...
Okay, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Okay, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
And every time somebody mentions this film I have to do my impression of Agent "Elrond" Smith:
"Mr. Baggins. Welcome back...we missed you."
Also, if I were presented with the choice Neo was: I'd take the blue pill.
"Mr. Baggins. Welcome back...we missed you."
Also, if I were presented with the choice Neo was: I'd take the blue pill.
The only part of the whole Matrix lore that I really HATED was Second Renaissance II. That montage of human soldiers being torn from their APCs and experimented on, made me almost physically ill to watch. 
Bad is a nice way of describing it.
It was really really bad. I LOATHED that "Kid" character in the battle sequences...I wanted him to DIE. I wanted the machines to WIN I hated him so much.
You've answered your own question here. The Matrix is a lot of fun because of its imaginatively shot action sequences which combine innovative visual effects and atypical stunt work, at least as far as western-made action pictures go. Of course, that's why I don't think the sequels are any better or worse than the original. They provide the same action thrills. They also provide the same overcooked pop-philosophy (the subject of too many supposedly academic books before the sequels even hit) and the preposterous future. Is that good? Well, not particularly, by my estimation. But it surely is entertaining. Watch Dark City if you'd like a more creative and interesting exploration of the same themes.
Maybe the red pill was an "app" that could start the wakeup and flush sequence on Neo's pod?
As for the land lines, I always equated them with software (our characters) requiring access to specific ports (the landlines) in the firewall of the matrix.
Storywise, if the characters could leave the matrix anytime they wished it would remove any sense of jeopardy. It's the same issue they had with transporters (and the reason there were so many transporter breakdowns/interference) in Star Trek.
The one thing all Matrix movies got right was the visualization of computer terms. The red pill being an application to trace Neo's exact location in the "factory" and to disconnect him from the Matrix. The phones being ports. Secret backdoors and keys. And in the end, when they use Neo's "program" to kick Smith's ass. Smith needed to overwrite Neo, and because he was directly connected to the machines, they were able to destroy Smith.
Yeah the pill severed his connection, which caused the tower to reject him, but unless the ship was able to locate any rejected Humans they wouldn't know where to pick him up, and how they got there that quickly when presumably broadcasting right next to the Power Plant would allow the machines to find the ship first I don't know.
Harvey;4352786You've answered your own question here. [I said:
Not to be quarrelsome, but no motion picture is a huge success because of visuals, action or not. Also, nobody else much cares that The Matrix movies laid a ground for cockeyed movie physics, because humanly impossible stunts have been de rigeur for what seems like forever. Most of all, no right thinking human (male, anyhow) feels anything but revulsion for Keanu Reeves. Only contrarian provocateurs such as I am supposed to be could like a Reeves performance.
I explained why I could tolerate The Matrix. I've watched the sequels several times and only rewatched The Matrix once, fast forwarding the big assault on the office building at that. I know tastes differ but what again is supposed to be so good about The Matrix, especially given the natural human hatred for Keanu Reeves?
Not only is Dark City better than The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor is better than The Matrix. It stars Craig Bierko, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Vincent D'Onofrio and Gretchen Mol.
No worries about being quarrelsome. I carry no deep attachment to The Matrix, but the back and forth is interesting.
Reeves isn't intolerable in certain roles--A Scanner Darkly, Bill & Ted, and The Matrix. He's good at playing characters who are spaced out and emotionally alienated. Neo fits that mold, I think. The supporting cast here also helps. Moreover, actors who are not particularly adept at emoting don't seem to be a hurdle for the success of action pictures (Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Stallone, and a variety of lesser action personalities rather prove this point).
You've recommended The Thirteenth Floor before, and I'd like to see it, but Netflix doesn't have it on Instant Watch, so it may be a while. As to why The Matrix is more popular, at least when it comes to Dark City, you can point to the less famous cast (Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly before she became famous, Kiefer Sutherland before he enjoyed renewed popularity with 24, etc.), the confusing advertising, or the studio meddling (thankfully fixed on home video), but I think the answer is much more apparent: it's not an action picture.
As for whether films can succeed based on visuals alone, I don't see how that statement could possibly evaluated without some sort of study. I'd pull up Avatar and Star Wars as possibilities of films that are primarily visually appealing, but I already know you'd disagree, so we can skip that debate.
As to the action film genre specifically, however, I don't think it's that astounding to claim that many of these films live and die based principally on their action sequences (not simply visuals, but the combination of picture and sound). Is John Woo particularly famous for his well-crafted characters or plots? Did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon spark a briefly renewed interest in wuxia films in the United States because of it's plot and characters, or because of the physics-defying stunts?
Reeves isn't intolerable in certain roles--A Scanner Darkly, Bill & Ted, and The Matrix. He's good at playing characters who are spaced out and emotionally alienated. Neo fits that mold, I think. The supporting cast here also helps. Moreover, actors who are not particularly adept at emoting don't seem to be a hurdle for the success of action pictures (Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Stallone, and a variety of lesser action personalities rather prove this point).
You've recommended The Thirteenth Floor before, and I'd like to see it, but Netflix doesn't have it on Instant Watch, so it may be a while. As to why The Matrix is more popular, at least when it comes to Dark City, you can point to the less famous cast (Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly before she became famous, Kiefer Sutherland before he enjoyed renewed popularity with 24, etc.), the confusing advertising, or the studio meddling (thankfully fixed on home video), but I think the answer is much more apparent: it's not an action picture.
As for whether films can succeed based on visuals alone, I don't see how that statement could possibly evaluated without some sort of study. I'd pull up Avatar and Star Wars as possibilities of films that are primarily visually appealing, but I already know you'd disagree, so we can skip that debate.
As to the action film genre specifically, however, I don't think it's that astounding to claim that many of these films live and die based principally on their action sequences (not simply visuals, but the combination of picture and sound). Is John Woo particularly famous for his well-crafted characters or plots? Did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon spark a briefly renewed interest in wuxia films in the United States because of it's plot and characters, or because of the physics-defying stunts?
I'm inclined to think that action movies are dominated by the action hero, not the visuals. A popular actor can take strong action sequences, and even better, a strong story, to great heights of popularity, but is there a really successful action flick with a weak lead? Children of Men and The International had superb action sequences (I read that so did Shoot'em Up,) but Clive what's his name isn't a popular star. So those movies visuals didn't make it a hit.
Wasn't John Woo's big hit Mission: Impossible, with Tom Cruise, while Face-Off with John Cage is still the same director but not a big movie star.
Wasn't John Woo's big hit Mission: Impossible, with Tom Cruise, while Face-Off with John Cage is still the same director but not a big movie star.
You mean John Travolta and Nic Cage? (which did world wide almost 250 million, on an 80 million dollar budget)
And Mission Impossible 2? (which did world wide almost 550 million on a 125 million dollar budget)
Both should be considered hits.
And all three (Cage, Travolta, and Cruise) were stars.
Children of Men was also pretty grim. Not in the same mold as a movie that proclaims, "I know kung fu," I don't think. I haven't seen The International, so I can't comment, although the reviews weren't stellar. You're not wrong that the cast is a factor, but The Matrix isn't too shabby in that department, if you buy Keanu Reeves (which, let's face it, audiences have often).
Woo directed the second Mission: Impossible film, which was a hit with audiences. So was Face/Off, I thought, though I think you've mistaken John Travolta and Nic Cage for the composer.
Similar threads
