It's only one example. The first movie is more of an exercise in how much you can steal from various sources without being sued successfully.
I want to know why the Matrix sequels were so bad?
- Thread starter Doctor King
- Start date
Yeah, dumb excitement. Trek 11 was shallow. The very first pilot "The Cage" was better than that but the studio said it was too cerebral.
But on the reincarnation issue in The Matrix.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
psik
I disagree.
In all honesty, it was beautifully written, very story-driven. I can not understand why you think that the first one sucked too? Mind you explain why it's sucked so much, eh?
I thought the first one was nice eye candy but a silly blend of pop philosophy, recycled ideas, and fanboy-orgasm-spinning-slow-motion-gunfights that made little sense. I saw it once and wasn't impressed and then upon rewatching disliked it even more, to the point of talking some friends out of going to see the 2nd one in the theaters lol.
That and I consider Keanu among the worst actors working today. Calling him "wooden" is an insult to a valuable structural material.
It's one of those emperor's-new-clothes things where I just don't understand what people see in it at all, but oh well. I don't expect everyone to like the same things and I know I like some things most fans don't... it's cool.
This is the kind of "defense" of The Matrix films that I despise -- the notion that not liking the films somehow constitutes an ignorance of their intent or content. It's perfectly possible to see the attempted philosophical exploration of the movies (particularly Reloaded and Revolutions) and dismiss them as clumsily portrayed. The philosophy of The Matrix films is interesting on a surface level, but because it's diluted with plenty of mindless action (e.g. a TWENTY minute action sequence in Reloaded in which nothing but action occurs) the explorations become pointless to me.
I get that others derive meaning from the films. That's cool. But if I want a little philosophy with my entertainment, there are other vehicles which I find more gratifying and provocative.
The biggest problem of the sequels? IMO too much damned time spent in Zion. The films just grind to a halt whenever there is a Zion scene.
I enjoyed the trilogy but agree that the sequels were more shallow than the original. Producers seem obsessed with making sequels bigger, bolder, and louder but they'd work better being pitched at exactly the same level with a decent plot. The Bourne trilogy works well because of this.
I rather like the architect's information dump. That it was practically incomprehensible on first viewing was an important aspect of the character. I like that it wasn't simplified to patronise the audience. And the final conclusion wasn't the triumph of good v evil, it was a compromise peace deal giving both sides some of what they wanted.
I agree that too much focus was on Zion. More than that, I hated that our scruffy, desperate heroes became glossy, make-up-caked, airbrushed heroes even in the real world. Where did the women find all the make-up and hair care products?
I rather like the architect's information dump. That it was practically incomprehensible on first viewing was an important aspect of the character. I like that it wasn't simplified to patronise the audience. And the final conclusion wasn't the triumph of good v evil, it was a compromise peace deal giving both sides some of what they wanted.
I agree that too much focus was on Zion. More than that, I hated that our scruffy, desperate heroes became glossy, make-up-caked, airbrushed heroes even in the real world. Where did the women find all the make-up and hair care products?
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I didn't read the other posts...
I didn't like them because they never actually defeated and/or stopped the Matrix.
I didn't like them because they never actually defeated and/or stopped the Matrix.
The "philosophy" in the sequels made a hell of a lot more sense than in the first one. Which makes every criticism of the philosophy in the sequels sound funny, to say the least.
On a bbs where people can tolerate the philosophy in Lost, which went on for well over a hundred hours, the claim that it was intolerable for six isn't believable.
Obviously the sequels were disliked by people who got less of what they like in the first movie, or disliked what was new. What there was less of was mainly Keanu Reeves and non-explanation. This is objectionable?
What was new? Zion, the Oracle as program, the Architect, and Neo being some sort of program incarnated in a human body. Nobody can say what's wrong with Zion. And, like it or not, program Neo, and the Oracle and Architect programs means explaining the cockamamie "plot" of the first movie.
Nardpuncher's post is the most believable and sensible one in the thread.
On a bbs where people can tolerate the philosophy in Lost, which went on for well over a hundred hours, the claim that it was intolerable for six isn't believable.
Obviously the sequels were disliked by people who got less of what they like in the first movie, or disliked what was new. What there was less of was mainly Keanu Reeves and non-explanation. This is objectionable?
What was new? Zion, the Oracle as program, the Architect, and Neo being some sort of program incarnated in a human body. Nobody can say what's wrong with Zion. And, like it or not, program Neo, and the Oracle and Architect programs means explaining the cockamamie "plot" of the first movie.
Nardpuncher's post is the most believable and sensible one in the thread.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Hey, thanks!
I think.
I think.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I went back and read other posts and this one is quite salient.
That stupid unending battle was almost like that cop car chase in Blues Brothers 2000 where right when you think it was over another 200 squids come through...then when that's over another 2000 come through...then when you think that wasn't awesome enough( it wasn't anyway) 4000 come through!
Not one bit of sarcasm intended. It's hard to understand how anyone who hates Keanu Reeves could agree with you.
But if you got emotionally invested in the end of the Matrix, then the ending would be a downer.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
But I liked that scene in the Matrix as much as it gave you a gut punch with Neo being but a small necessary cog in a huge machine...and how it was a guy in a chair just explaining it to you.
It was one of the only neat moments in the second two movies to me. I was surprised they were that open with the story and it was weird because there was still another whole movie left so if felt daring (a little) to me to have the plight spelled out like that.
It was one of the only neat moments in the second two movies to me. I was surprised they were that open with the story and it was weird because there was still another whole movie left so if felt daring (a little) to me to have the plight spelled out like that.
The Matrix is not about any EUROPEAN Concept of philosophy.
That is why I provided this link:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
I knew about Gnosticism long before the movies came out.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_matrix_gnos.htm
So the first movie was like a hook to drag people into the rest, but if people did not see the clues in the first and figure out what was in the rest then it made no sense.
psik
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
^^ Sorry , first link said reincarnation....I'm not going any further.
OH THANK YOU FOR HELPING EDUCATE THE IGNORANT MASSES!
Seriously. Enough with the "If they criticize The Matrix it must be because they didn't get it, and I did" crap. It's a bullshit argument. Just because one can argue that The Matrix Trilogy is "cerebral" or "philosophical" or "totally deep, man" doesn't necessarily mean that they were good movies. Or that people ought to flock to them to "figure them out."
As I said before, if I want to be both entertained and challenged, I'll look elsewhere than The Matrix Trilogy because if a film wants me to take it seriously, it's going to have to do better than a TWENTY minute continuous action-porno sequence -- which is just one example of many why, IMO, the sequels were poorly made movies.
If you find depth in meaning in the films, and find them entertaining that's perfectly fine by me. There's plenty of grist for the philosophical mill if you're down with the way the films are presented. So have at it all you want. Just don't jump to the conclusion that because people don't place the same value on the films as you do, that they are, somehow, in need of education by you, or anyone else.
I thought there were pretty good.
My only issue is with Matrix Revolutions, personally. I felt that the ending
I loved the first film and Matrix Reloaded was was an awesome sequel to it.
did not fit the established theme of the franchise, which was to be free and have an open mind, and it felt out of place and contrary to that because Neo just kind of did what he was told to do by The Oracle, an aspect of the machine.
I loved the first film and Matrix Reloaded was was an awesome sequel to it.
Last edited:
