- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
I still don't get how they made this movie and released it in theatres during pandemic and economic turmoil, where audience numbers can be only expected to turn out shitty.
The Matrix Resurrections Thread - Woah
- Thread starter Gordon Cole
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
They're trying to get people back into cinemas, especially with the backlash from many sources for the idea of 'same day streaming'. The new Spiderman proved they would, if the draw was big enough. Most of the films they've used to try and do it haven't been, sadly. Especially when there's been things like Dune that really did deserve to be seen on the big screen. If Resurrections had the same visual panache as the first Matrix film then if you were going to see it, it would be worth doing it at the cinema.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
It all just boils down to having the same issue that The Last Jedi had: it put the theme above the story. You want a meta narrative? Fine. But by doing so, the story beats start to fall apart. For example, Neo being a video game developer of the Matrix trilogy is silly because there were clearly events that happened that we didn’t see. The crew not recognizing Neo is another dumb thing for similar reasons. These movies forget that they are sequels to other films. And it’s unique cash-grabby methodology doesn’t change how pointless the movie ultimately was.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
Keanu looks like a bum cosplaying as Neo.
LightDragonman1
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
This is a problem I have with the previous sequels to The Matrix, as well as films like Evangelion 3.0. Yet every time I point that out, especially in regards to the latter, I get responses like "you haven't even considered the themes" and "because making you feel something is totally a bad thing for a film to do" and "you felt something, so that makes it a masterpiece".
LightDragonman1
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
Double posting here, but given how dead this thread has been prior to me, erm, resurrecting it, that's to be expected. I've posted these thoughts of mine on other sites, but I want to know what you guys think (best to get a wide range of opinions from all groups of people, including, yes those on sites like TV Tropes and Reddit). Warning, this post is gonna be a long and rather autistic one.
The Tl;DR version of my thoughts are that Top Gun Maverick is everything that Matrix Resurrections should've tried to be, and Lana should've done what Cruise and Kosinski did when it came to making the sequel. For the full autistic post, keep on reading.
Anyways, the reason is because I've been thinking back to how much the last film disappointed me, especially after reflecting on it now having seen arguably the best film of the year that surprisingly shares similarities to The Matrix Resurrections, that being Top Gun Maverick. Looking at the two films, it's interesting how much shared DNA they have.
Both are legacy sequels to long dormant series, are basically the original creators (Lana Wachowski and Tom Cruise) going back to look at and examine the legacy of the original, take new looks at what place the older characters have when compared to the new generation, have the past trauma inform a lot of what the hero goes through, use new techniques in the filming of it (be it natural lighting or actual riding in the jets), and use meta-commentary to reflect on the very nature of these sorts of films (be it all of the blatant fourth-wall leaning moments in Resurrections, or the many remarks given to Maverick about his time being almost up in TGM).
Yet Matrix Resurrections ended up being a box-office failure and garnered mediocre reviews, while Top Gun Maverick is currently enjoying record breaking box-office numbers and critical acclaim. One is considered unnecessary and a huge letdown, and the other is hailed as arguably the new blueprint for how a legacy sequel should be done. Why is that, despite them both having arguably the same goal in mind?
Honestly, I think it comes down to the execution. With Matrix Resurrections, Lana got too caught up in it being a personal project with a very specific message she wanted to get across. It's blatantly obvious that this is both her airing her grievances about the constant demands for her to make another sequel, and her working through her grief at losing people close to her. Whether it's all the moments of biting the hands of WB during the first act, the decision to resurrect Neo and Trinity, Bug's message to the former about how his legend was told to her and others, and the increased focus on the love story between the two of them, her intentions are very clear.
Top Gun Maverick does something similar. It's also very clear that Cruise viewed it as a personal work as well, made especially obvious by his thank you message to the audience at the beginning. From the whole training camp he designed the actors to go through, his insistence that it be released in cinemas to the point of delaying it multiple times, and even the fact that he went out of his way to get Val Kilmer back in spite of his illnesses. And like Lana, Cruise also inserted his own thoughts about what the studios and the like think of these sorts of sequels and how the old characters are treated (just look at the speech Ed Harris's character gives in the beginning).
But it's here that the reason behind why one failed and the other succeeded become clear.
In Matrix Resurrections, Lana is so caught up in showcasing her feelings and the themes she wants to communicate that she neglects nearly every single area that counts. Whether its the much tamer action, Neo not being nearly as pro-active as he once was, and ultimately repeating many of the same beats as the originals but not doing anything more creative with them, TMR simply fails to really justify why it needed to be made in the first place. In fact, it actually repeats a lot of the failings of the previous sequels, rather than fixing them, such as the long dialogue sequences and dodgy CGI.
Yes, that may have been the point (the brainstorming focus group scene comes to mind), but this doesn't make it any less tedious to watch. And the things that are added either don't add much (the Analyst's time stop being used just for more dialogue) or make the film look ironically cheaper (the natural lighting being one of the main culprits). It certainly doesn't help that Neo isn't really treated with as much dignity as he should. The most he gets to do as The One is force-push, and he doesn't even get to fly until after Trinity does. In putting so much focus on the themes and meta-commentary, the film forgets everything else. It's no wonder why so many viewers have come away not liking it, and it resulting in a $100,000,000 box-office loss as a result. Heck, it may have actually killed people's interest in the franchise for good, which while that may have been Lana's intent as to torch the series and run for it, is still disappointing, given how rich the world of the Matrix series is.
Now compare this to Top Gun Maverick. While it too includes similar themes and messages, it never lets them overtake the main narrative and reasons as to why people came to see it in the first place. That being, not to have some sort of overt meta-commentary on the nature of the film's existence, but to come away with a satisfying sequel that lives up to and honors the original. And in this regard, TGM pulls this off masterfully.
Not content with just repeating action and narrative beats, it one-ups the originals thanks to going above and beyond with real stunts (they really did train to fly in the backseat of the F/A-18 Super Hornets), fixes complaints people had with the original (even down to the smallest things like them actually using their cannons this time), and everything that is added to the film actually justifies its existence as a legacy sequel, given that it, rather than just repeat the beats of the original purely to make a "meta-commentary", instead builds upon what was set-up in the first film, such as Maverick's guilt over Goose's death and his friendship with Iceman.
That, and it also treats the main hero with more dignity. While it isn't afraid to question Maverick's place in the present day, it ultimately reaffirms why he is still a beloved hero. He gets to show why he still has it, from his 2:15 minute test run, to his sacrifice for Rooster during the Coffin Corner sequence, he is not pushed aside just to make some sort of "point". Whereas Neo is made to more or less react to everything with little agency until the end, Maverick is made more pro-active instead.
As a result, TGM end up being a much more satisfying legacy sequel than TMR. Yes, all of the above mentioned may have been the point Lana was trying to communicate, but it just doesn't translate well in practice, especially when combined with the poor execution. Whereas Cruise knew exactly how to treat the legacy of the original without being heavy-handed, and didn't sacrifice anything just to prove a "point". And unlike how TMR destroyed many people's interest in that series, more people have become fans of the Top Gun series to the point that ideas and the demand for more sequels are forming in the minds of many who saw it.
Being a huge fan of the original Matrix and not that much of a fan of the original Top Gun, it's both ironic and disheartening that it turned out this way, for me that is. Lana really could've taken a few notes from how Cruise and Joseph Kosinski approached making the sequel to Top Gun for when she made Matrix Resurrections. She could still have her meta-commentary and all that, but she should've still done what the latter two filmmakers did; that being, one-up the original while honoring it, treat the hero with more respect, and still deliver a satisfying experience beyond just the personal manner.
That is, at least in my eyes, why one film is at a mere 63% RT score, 5.7 IMDB rating and only grossed 157.3 million USD on a 190 million USD budget, while the other is sitting at a mighty 96% RT score, 8.5 IMDB rating, and has made 1.424 billion USD on a 170 million USD budget. While Matrix Resurrections crashed and burned, Top Gun Maverick soared.
Again though, that's just my thoughts. What say you guys?
The Tl;DR version of my thoughts are that Top Gun Maverick is everything that Matrix Resurrections should've tried to be, and Lana should've done what Cruise and Kosinski did when it came to making the sequel. For the full autistic post, keep on reading.
Anyways, the reason is because I've been thinking back to how much the last film disappointed me, especially after reflecting on it now having seen arguably the best film of the year that surprisingly shares similarities to The Matrix Resurrections, that being Top Gun Maverick. Looking at the two films, it's interesting how much shared DNA they have.
Both are legacy sequels to long dormant series, are basically the original creators (Lana Wachowski and Tom Cruise) going back to look at and examine the legacy of the original, take new looks at what place the older characters have when compared to the new generation, have the past trauma inform a lot of what the hero goes through, use new techniques in the filming of it (be it natural lighting or actual riding in the jets), and use meta-commentary to reflect on the very nature of these sorts of films (be it all of the blatant fourth-wall leaning moments in Resurrections, or the many remarks given to Maverick about his time being almost up in TGM).
Yet Matrix Resurrections ended up being a box-office failure and garnered mediocre reviews, while Top Gun Maverick is currently enjoying record breaking box-office numbers and critical acclaim. One is considered unnecessary and a huge letdown, and the other is hailed as arguably the new blueprint for how a legacy sequel should be done. Why is that, despite them both having arguably the same goal in mind?
Honestly, I think it comes down to the execution. With Matrix Resurrections, Lana got too caught up in it being a personal project with a very specific message she wanted to get across. It's blatantly obvious that this is both her airing her grievances about the constant demands for her to make another sequel, and her working through her grief at losing people close to her. Whether it's all the moments of biting the hands of WB during the first act, the decision to resurrect Neo and Trinity, Bug's message to the former about how his legend was told to her and others, and the increased focus on the love story between the two of them, her intentions are very clear.
Top Gun Maverick does something similar. It's also very clear that Cruise viewed it as a personal work as well, made especially obvious by his thank you message to the audience at the beginning. From the whole training camp he designed the actors to go through, his insistence that it be released in cinemas to the point of delaying it multiple times, and even the fact that he went out of his way to get Val Kilmer back in spite of his illnesses. And like Lana, Cruise also inserted his own thoughts about what the studios and the like think of these sorts of sequels and how the old characters are treated (just look at the speech Ed Harris's character gives in the beginning).
But it's here that the reason behind why one failed and the other succeeded become clear.
In Matrix Resurrections, Lana is so caught up in showcasing her feelings and the themes she wants to communicate that she neglects nearly every single area that counts. Whether its the much tamer action, Neo not being nearly as pro-active as he once was, and ultimately repeating many of the same beats as the originals but not doing anything more creative with them, TMR simply fails to really justify why it needed to be made in the first place. In fact, it actually repeats a lot of the failings of the previous sequels, rather than fixing them, such as the long dialogue sequences and dodgy CGI.
Yes, that may have been the point (the brainstorming focus group scene comes to mind), but this doesn't make it any less tedious to watch. And the things that are added either don't add much (the Analyst's time stop being used just for more dialogue) or make the film look ironically cheaper (the natural lighting being one of the main culprits). It certainly doesn't help that Neo isn't really treated with as much dignity as he should. The most he gets to do as The One is force-push, and he doesn't even get to fly until after Trinity does. In putting so much focus on the themes and meta-commentary, the film forgets everything else. It's no wonder why so many viewers have come away not liking it, and it resulting in a $100,000,000 box-office loss as a result. Heck, it may have actually killed people's interest in the franchise for good, which while that may have been Lana's intent as to torch the series and run for it, is still disappointing, given how rich the world of the Matrix series is.
Now compare this to Top Gun Maverick. While it too includes similar themes and messages, it never lets them overtake the main narrative and reasons as to why people came to see it in the first place. That being, not to have some sort of overt meta-commentary on the nature of the film's existence, but to come away with a satisfying sequel that lives up to and honors the original. And in this regard, TGM pulls this off masterfully.
Not content with just repeating action and narrative beats, it one-ups the originals thanks to going above and beyond with real stunts (they really did train to fly in the backseat of the F/A-18 Super Hornets), fixes complaints people had with the original (even down to the smallest things like them actually using their cannons this time), and everything that is added to the film actually justifies its existence as a legacy sequel, given that it, rather than just repeat the beats of the original purely to make a "meta-commentary", instead builds upon what was set-up in the first film, such as Maverick's guilt over Goose's death and his friendship with Iceman.
That, and it also treats the main hero with more dignity. While it isn't afraid to question Maverick's place in the present day, it ultimately reaffirms why he is still a beloved hero. He gets to show why he still has it, from his 2:15 minute test run, to his sacrifice for Rooster during the Coffin Corner sequence, he is not pushed aside just to make some sort of "point". Whereas Neo is made to more or less react to everything with little agency until the end, Maverick is made more pro-active instead.
As a result, TGM end up being a much more satisfying legacy sequel than TMR. Yes, all of the above mentioned may have been the point Lana was trying to communicate, but it just doesn't translate well in practice, especially when combined with the poor execution. Whereas Cruise knew exactly how to treat the legacy of the original without being heavy-handed, and didn't sacrifice anything just to prove a "point". And unlike how TMR destroyed many people's interest in that series, more people have become fans of the Top Gun series to the point that ideas and the demand for more sequels are forming in the minds of many who saw it.
Being a huge fan of the original Matrix and not that much of a fan of the original Top Gun, it's both ironic and disheartening that it turned out this way, for me that is. Lana really could've taken a few notes from how Cruise and Joseph Kosinski approached making the sequel to Top Gun for when she made Matrix Resurrections. She could still have her meta-commentary and all that, but she should've still done what the latter two filmmakers did; that being, one-up the original while honoring it, treat the hero with more respect, and still deliver a satisfying experience beyond just the personal manner.
That is, at least in my eyes, why one film is at a mere 63% RT score, 5.7 IMDB rating and only grossed 157.3 million USD on a 190 million USD budget, while the other is sitting at a mighty 96% RT score, 8.5 IMDB rating, and has made 1.424 billion USD on a 170 million USD budget. While Matrix Resurrections crashed and burned, Top Gun Maverick soared.
Again though, that's just my thoughts. What say you guys?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
I think that's why they did it. Even Warner was skeptical about this film but released it anyway since they could essentially shut up the one Wachowski brother, retain the rights to the IP for other projects and use its status as a flop as a tax write-off.
Haftag
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2022
Eh, at least here:
1. The actors are engaged, you feel the violence
2. It's not always shaky, like when they're on the ground
3. Other stuff, like lack of music, enviromental interactions and said violence compel it.
Yep, one of the few that I stopped watching based on the shakiness of the starting chase scene.
Also, Spider-Man fanservice at home is worse. Bite me.
jorgoth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2020
The Matrix sequels aren't canon.
The Wachowski brothers are dead.
Long live the Wachowski brothers.
The Wachowski brothers are dead.
Long live the Wachowski brothers.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2020
The Wachowskis are the worst thing to happen to the Matrix. Imagine if Oshii Mamoru directed a Matrix movie. Or any Animatrix director really.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2020
Here to say that the matrix path of neo is a great janky game and everyone should play it
Shroom King
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
I thought this movie would have been a lot better if the Matrix trilogy was a video game series Thomas Anderson made in the 90's, but then he went insane, convinced himself he was Neo and that the Matrix was real, and having the movie end with Mr. Anderson dying in a Waco-style standoff after he tries to hack the Pentagon, because he believes they are hiding the Matrix from the public.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
DankSmoker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2021
Emplemon is lookin like a fat hippie, someone needs to bully him.
LightDragonman1
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
Bit of a late reply, but it turns out that Lily came out and clarified that, no, The Matrix wasn't intended to be a trans allegory, at least not in the way people think, and that she and Lana didn't set out to make it that. Though she doesn't deny seeing those themes in it.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
I completely forgot they made a 4th.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2020
Look at them pretending they had some kind of plan or greater themwork beyond "Rip off Dark City and John Woo as much as possible".
Standardized Profile
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2018
I don't know if I said this before, but I'm very disappointed my stealth prequel hypothesis was wrong. The existing Matrix lore gave them a great opportunity to explore what would've happened if Neo made different choices and themes like regret, making up for past mistakes, and finding motivation at a later stage of life. But I guess those themes wouldn't appeal to troons, would they?