Hmm

True Love · 10-01-2003, 04:49 PM

Awanka thinks the Wachowsi brothers are pulling a Lucas, Oakman says that the cyberpunk in the first movie is gone. Anyone else get the feeling that something changed between #1 and #2? Anybody else see something in #1 that wasn't in #2?

I usually don't read a lot about movies other than reviews, but I remember (and I may be wrong) that the success of the first Matrix was a surprise. I also seem to remember that they had planned it as three movies from the beginning. Of course George Lucas planned six or nine Star Wars movies, and that didn't keep the last two from being mediocre. The Wachowski brothers talk about birth, life and death, and George Lucas talks about how Anakin's fall is such a great story, but they both seem to be following up great successes with special effects extravaganzas that are shallower on story and depth.

Yeah, I'm speaking as someone who liked the first one a lot and was disappointed by Reloaded.

Anyway, I was curious to see if anyone else got the impression that Matrixs 2 & 3 were/are conciously being made differently than the first one. Or was the first one just a highly overrated action movie that was followed by pretty much the same thing.

Lin · 10-01-2003, 05:14 PM

Or was the first one just a highly overrated action movie that was followed by pretty much the same thing.

Overrated AND followed by inferior product. The trailer to 3 looks BAD. "There is no spoon" sounds deep and you're still wondering WTF is going on, but by the end of the movie they can cut the bullshit and just say "it's a virtual spoon, you're in a virtual reality." Movie 2 forgot to cut the bullshit and threw more mystical crap at you and it was just tired. That combined with hour long bullshit fights just makes a sizeable chunk of the movie frustrating instead of interesting.

Sabinfi · 10-01-2003, 05:41 PM

Another Reloaded thread?!?!

Narayen Annihilation · 10-01-2003, 05:53 PM

I thought the first one was really good. Then again when the first one came out I was in I think 7th grade or something? The 2nd one didn't disappoint me, but it didn't 'wow' me. After watching the first one, I said "Wow." After watching the 2nd one I said, "Hmmm, that was a pretty good movie."

How could you possibly make a movie good enough to measure up to the first one? The first one totally caught people off guard, a concept such as the one presented in the first one had never been presented before. The Wachowski(sp?) brothers didn't change their vision, when they were making the first one they made it in the same way the made the 2nd and 3rd one: they were just telling the story.

In my opinion, the 2nd and 3rd one couldn't have possibly met people's expectations because of the success of the first one. I liked the 2nd one because in my opinion it was in-line with how the story was suppose to progress. It has been argued by many that the 2nd one lacked emotion, but I believe that the 2nd one was suppose to lack emotion, because as Neo says, "I just wish I knew what I was suppose to do." Neo doesn't know what his purpose is in the 2nd one, he's just reacting to situations. So "why didn't Neo just fly away before beginning the battle with Agent Smith?" Well, did he know he was going to lose? Did he know he was going to win? He probably didn't even consider that, Smith made the first move so he just started fighting, when he realized he couldn't win he flew away.

The 2nd movie lacked emotion because it was suppose to. So when I was watching it I saw just that, that in some scenes it lacked emotion but I understood why. Maybe everyone else did too and that bothered them, and I'm not saying I'm definetly right, but who's to say, it your opinion. Now that the 2nd one has been made and released it's easy to say "it sucked" and give huge critisisms to it, but how could the Wachowski brothers take all of that critisism into account before the movie was even made?

I've also thought about this... Maybe it's one of those situations where you don't know what you're doing is genius and you release the final product and everyone raves "Genius!" and you're like "What? I thought it sucked...". Everyone raves "More! More!" and you're like "Well I don't know what I did correctly the first time so I'll just take my best shot with the following stuff." So they took their best shot and now they suck. I don't think this is the case because I liked the 2nd one and I think I'll like the 3rd one but who's to say? I have my own opinion about The Matrices and obviously so does everyone else.

One thing that really made me angry was how Howard Stern was talking about The Matrix: Reloaded. It didn't really make me angry the things he was saying, but I thought to myself, "He's probably just hating it to go against the flow." Which something I considered. I think a lot of people don't like The Matrix: Reloaded just because it was expected to be a REALLY good movie, and when it wasn't ABSOLUTELY AMAZING then people who try to be different, 'rebel' and go against the flow see this as an opportunity to say "I hated The Matrix: Reloaded, it sucked!" in an effort to get everyone to say "What? You're crazy! &ltattention&gt" But that's just another theory of mine.

All in all, you can take The Matrix or you can leave it. I'm going to watch the third one and enjoy it just the same. I think The Matrix series is awesome but I understand that some people don't.

Narayen Annihilation · 10-01-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabinfi
Another Reloaded thread?!?!

Yes but this Reloaded thread is different in that we're cross-examining it with Star Wars and discussing The Matrix series' decay in quality with discussion about why Reloaded was the way it was.

AngryGerbil · 10-01-2003, 06:20 PM

Without getting too deep, I will agree with Narayen. There is no way the second movie could have lived up to our collective expectations. The one thing that the original had, the BEST thing that the original had, the one thing that cannot be duplicated in the sequel: originality. That whole movie came from left field, how can you expect them to duplicate that?

Did the Wachowski's over indulge in the 2nd movie? Maybe a little. But can you honestly expect any person to make a movie that is expected to fail, and then become the biggest movie of the decade, to NOT be affected by it?

I guess my point is this. I challenge you to make a movie as good as The Matrix. Then, I challenge you to follow it up.

Revolutions was not as good as the first, on this I agree with the masses. But it was just about as good as it could have been given a realistic view.

If I recall correctly, "The Empire Strikes Back" wasn't at first considered by most to be as worthy as "A New Hope". Now: Many people, including myself, think it was the best one.

Iannis · 10-01-2003, 06:46 PM

Well, you did have "Ugly Mark Hamill", the bombshell that all the naughty fantasies of luke gettin' some hot princess love were SICK, SICK, and...uhm...I dunno, i've always liked the Empire Strikes Back the best as en experience, but A New Hope lived up to the mythological saga goal a better than the sequels.

The mythology aspect isn't even present in the new trilogy. It's just poorly scripted sci-fi to get the goombahs off of Lucas' back about completing the story.

Stroker Ace · 10-01-2003, 06:49 PM

You guys know that Reloaded and Revolutions were filmed back to back, and the Wachowsi bro's filmed both as if it were one movie, right? So basically they wanted you to view each as a volume, that is why there release dates were so close together. So you are basically judging 1/2 a movie.

Here are 2 qoutes from a couple months ago.

Joel Silver: "Reloaded and Revolutions could be one film. But I think they work best as two sittings. It's quite a lot to absorb. Revolutions is all-out war between the humans and the machines and will, by all accounts, blow your fucking minds. We have a 14-minute, $40 million battle sequence that is the most complicated sequence ever put on film."

Another production executive, Dan Cracchiolo, adds, "You know Revolutions is the real thing, right? Revolutions is the payoff. Reloaded is just a tease."

I enjoyed Reloaded just as much as the first, but I know I will appreciate Reloaded even more after seeing Revolutions.

True Love · 10-01-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabinfi
Another Reloaded thread?!?!

My bad, this was supposed to be a reply to the trailer thread. Fucked up somewhere...

teauvian · 10-01-2003, 08:27 PM

Coppola made Godfather II which lived up to the expectations created by Godfather I, a far better movie than the Matrix so I don't think it is impossible.

Narayen Annihilation · 10-01-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroker Ace
Joel Silver: "Reloaded and Revolutions could be one film. But I think they work best as two sittings. It's quite a lot to absorb. Revolutions is all-out war between the humans and the machines and will, by all accounts, blow your fucking minds. We have a 14-minute, $40 million battle sequence that is the most complicated sequence ever put on film."

Another production executive, Dan Cracchiolo, adds, "You know Revolutions is the real thing, right? Revolutions is the payoff. Reloaded is just a tease."

Hearing things like this remind me that people sitting on their self-made thrones critisizing The Matrix: Reloaded will be eating their words when Revolutions comes out.

And when I say eating their words, I mean I am going to brand their words into shards of flaming-hot glass and force them down their throats. That means you, Howard Stern.

Ham n Cheese · 10-01-2003, 10:13 PM

Well I'm a huge fan of Matrix, and I'm one of the people that get kinda tired of all the people who overhyped a middle movie in a trilogy whine about it being shitty. But, what the hell else is he going to say? 14 minute fight makes me think /yawn, I get the point after 5 minutes, and I'd take some good written dialogue (lack of this in matrix) over an extended 10$mil put towards some CGI.

Millie · 10-02-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Narayen Annihilation
Hearing things like this remind me that people sitting on their self-made thrones critisizing The Matrix: Reloaded will be eating their words when Revolutions comes out.

And when I say eating their words, I mean I am going to brand their words into shards of flaming-hot glass and force them down their throats. That means you, Howard Stern.

Let's not get carried away here. How, exactly, is hearing Joel Silver hyping Revolutions supposed to refute anyone's claims that Reloaded was a mediocre movie? Joel Silver is the producer of the movies. Of course he's going to say they're spectacular; that's his job. I wouldn't trust his opinion farther than I could throw it.

Camu · 10-02-2003, 06:29 AM

ooh Millie is alive! hi Millie!

Narayen Annihilation · 10-02-2003, 03:42 PM

To each their own. We'll see in about a month.

10-01-2003, 04:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
True Love hax uber alles Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 276 +0 Internets	Hmm Awanka thinks the Wachowsi brothers are pulling a Lucas, Oakman says that the cyberpunk in the first movie is gone. Anyone else get the feeling that something changed between #1 and #2? Anybody else see something in #1 that wasn't in #2? I usually don't read a lot about movies other than reviews, but I remember (and I may be wrong) that the success of the first Matrix was a surprise. I also seem to remember that they had planned it as three movies from the beginning. Of course George Lucas planned six or nine Star Wars movies, and that didn't keep the last two from being mediocre. The Wachowski brothers talk about birth, life and death, and George Lucas talks about how Anakin's fall is such a great story, but they both seem to be following up great successes with special effects extravaganzas that are shallower on story and depth. Yeah, I'm speaking as someone who liked the first one a lot and was disappointed by Reloaded. Anyway, I was curious to see if anyone else got the impression that Matrixs 2 & 3 were/are conciously being made differently than the first one. Or was the first one just a highly overrated action movie that was followed by pretty much the same thing.

10-01-2003, 05:53 PM	#4 (permalink)
Narayen Annihilation Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 206 -1 Internets	I thought the first one was really good. Then again when the first one came out I was in I think 7th grade or something? The 2nd one didn't disappoint me, but it didn't 'wow' me. After watching the first one, I said "Wow." After watching the 2nd one I said, "Hmmm, that was a pretty good movie." How could you possibly make a movie good enough to measure up to the first one? The first one totally caught people off guard, a concept such as the one presented in the first one had never been presented before. The Wachowski(sp?) brothers didn't change their vision, when they were making the first one they made it in the same way the made the 2nd and 3rd one: they were just telling the story. In my opinion, the 2nd and 3rd one couldn't have possibly met people's expectations because of the success of the first one. I liked the 2nd one because in my opinion it was in-line with how the story was suppose to progress. It has been argued by many that the 2nd one lacked emotion, but I believe that the 2nd one was suppose to lack emotion, because as Neo says, "I just wish I knew what I was suppose to do." Neo doesn't know what his purpose is in the 2nd one, he's just reacting to situations. So "why didn't Neo just fly away before beginning the battle with Agent Smith?" Well, did he know he was going to lose? Did he know he was going to win? He probably didn't even consider that, Smith made the first move so he just started fighting, when he realized he couldn't win he flew away. The 2nd movie lacked emotion because it was suppose to. So when I was watching it I saw just that, that in some scenes it lacked emotion but I understood why. Maybe everyone else did too and that bothered them, and I'm not saying I'm definetly right, but who's to say, it your opinion. Now that the 2nd one has been made and released it's easy to say "it sucked" and give huge critisisms to it, but how could the Wachowski brothers take all of that critisism into account before the movie was even made? I've also thought about this... Maybe it's one of those situations where you don't know what you're doing is genius and you release the final product and everyone raves "Genius!" and you're like "What? I thought it sucked...". Everyone raves "More! More!" and you're like "Well I don't know what I did correctly the first time so I'll just take my best shot with the following stuff." So they took their best shot and now they suck. I don't think this is the case because I liked the 2nd one and I think I'll like the 3rd one but who's to say? I have my own opinion about The Matrices and obviously so does everyone else. One thing that really made me angry was how Howard Stern was talking about The Matrix: Reloaded. It didn't really make me angry the things he was saying, but I thought to myself, "He's probably just hating it to go against the flow." Which something I considered. I think a lot of people don't like The Matrix: Reloaded just because it was expected to be a REALLY good movie, and when it wasn't ABSOLUTELY AMAZING then people who try to be different, 'rebel' and go against the flow see this as an opportunity to say "I hated The Matrix: Reloaded, it sucked!" in an effort to get everyone to say "What? You're crazy! &ltattention&gt" But that's just another theory of mine. All in all, you can take The Matrix or you can leave it. I'm going to watch the third one and enjoy it just the same. I think The Matrix series is awesome but I understand that some people don't. __________________

10-01-2003, 06:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
AngryGerbil zero signal Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 3,547	Without getting too deep, I will agree with Narayen. There is no way the second movie could have lived up to our collective expectations. The one thing that the original had, the BEST thing that the original had, the one thing that cannot be duplicated in the sequel: originality. That whole movie came from left field, how can you expect them to duplicate that? Did the Wachowski's over indulge in the 2nd movie? Maybe a little. But can you honestly expect any person to make a movie that is expected to fail, and then become the biggest movie of the decade, to NOT be affected by it? I guess my point is this. I challenge you to make a movie as good as The Matrix. Then, I challenge you to follow it up. Revolutions was not as good as the first, on this I agree with the masses. But it was just about as good as it could have been given a realistic view. If I recall correctly, "The Empire Strikes Back" wasn't at first considered by most to be as worthy as "A New Hope". Now: Many people, including myself, think it was the best one. __________________ Doesn't speak the language. Holds no currency.

10-01-2003, 06:49 PM	#8 (permalink)
Stroker Ace Posts to Make Love to Your Old Lady By Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 805	You guys know that Reloaded and Revolutions were filmed back to back, and the Wachowsi bro's filmed both as if it were one movie, right? So basically they wanted you to view each as a volume, that is why there release dates were so close together. So you are basically judging 1/2 a movie. Here are 2 qoutes from a couple months ago. Joel Silver: "Reloaded and Revolutions could be one film. But I think they work best as two sittings. It's quite a lot to absorb. Revolutions is all-out war between the humans and the machines and will, by all accounts, blow your fucking minds. We have a 14-minute, $40 million battle sequence that is the most complicated sequence ever put on film." Another production executive, Dan Cracchiolo, adds, "You know Revolutions is the real thing, right? Revolutions is the payoff. Reloaded is just a tease." I enjoyed Reloaded just as much as the first, but I know I will appreciate Reloaded even more after seeing Revolutions. __________________ "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush

10-01-2003, 10:13 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ham n Cheese You can betray me Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 8,659 +20 Internets	Well I'm a huge fan of Matrix, and I'm one of the people that get kinda tired of all the people who overhyped a middle movie in a trilogy whine about it being shitty. But, what the hell else is he going to say? 14 minute fight makes me think /yawn, I get the point after 5 minutes, and I'd take some good written dialogue (lack of this in matrix) over an extended 10$mil put towards some CGI. __________________ Xeph Caito Cao'Li Hunky Dory

10-01-2003, 05:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lin Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 877 -1 Internets	Or was the first one just a highly overrated action movie that was followed by pretty much the same thing. Overrated AND followed by inferior product. The trailer to 3 looks BAD. "There is no spoon" sounds deep and you're still wondering WTF is going on, but by the end of the movie they can cut the bullshit and just say "it's a virtual spoon, you're in a virtual reality." Movie 2 forgot to cut the bullshit and threw more mystical crap at you and it was just tired. That combined with hour long bullshit fights just makes a sizeable chunk of the movie frustrating instead of interesting.

10-01-2003, 05:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sabinfi New title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 86 +0 Internets	Another Reloaded thread?!?!

10-01-2003, 06:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
Iannis Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Butt Hugging Moose Jockey Posts: 4,968 +0 Internets	Well, you did have "Ugly Mark Hamill", the bombshell that all the naughty fantasies of luke gettin' some hot princess love were SICK, SICK, and...uhm...I dunno, i've always liked the Empire Strikes Back the best as en experience, but A New Hope lived up to the mythological saga goal a better than the sequels. The mythology aspect isn't even present in the new trilogy. It's just poorly scripted sci-fi to get the goombahs off of Lucas' back about completing the story.

10-01-2003, 08:27 PM	#10 (permalink)
teauvian Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 351 -1 Internets	Coppola made Godfather II which lived up to the expectations created by Godfather I, a far better movie than the Matrix so I don't think it is impossible.

10-02-2003, 06:29 AM	#14 (permalink)
Camu Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: France Posts: 108 -1 Internets	ooh Millie is alive! hi Millie!

10-02-2003, 03:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
Narayen Annihilation Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 206 -1 Internets	To each their own. We'll see in about a month. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: