In your opinion, what went wrong with The Matrix Sequels?

ProfessorWeeto

Over the last few days I re-watched all 3 Matrix movies.
Its a commonly shared belief that the Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions arent the best. But what went wrong? The first movie was amazing... the sequels... meh.

In your opinion what went wrong?

For me,
Its hard to put my finger on it, but the second movie just went in a totally different direction. Program this, program that. I mean "The Keymaker" ? Even "The Architect" - especially the annoying words and phrases :pac: and that The Oracle can predict things. But shes just a program

Then in the third one programs who feel Love and Karma :pac: The fact Neo can be in the matrix, but not be 'jacked in', that he can destroy the machines using his mind. Pretty much Neo is Jesus because there are alot of supernatural things that he can do. That for me were never explained. That the first never mentioned or made any reference too.

Rant over :pac:

You?

scudzilla

The films were bastardised by Hollywood, Matrix 1 is one of my all time fav films but 2 & 3 are some of my worst.

The brothers got too arty and deep IMO, if they'd have put all there idea's into 1 film it would have been grand

paddy kerins

I was nearly going to make the exact same thread on this earlier haha. To be honest I enjoyed Reloaded and Revolutions and never really saw much wrong with them. Obviously they're not as good as the first but, well, what are ya gonna do?

kdevitt

ProfessorWeeto wrote: »

that The Oracle can predict things. But shes just a program

She can predict everything, because it was been programmed to happen that way - and she is a program that is aware of this.

So when Neo faces the architect he is expected to do as 'the one' has been programmed, as he shouldn't in fact have free will - which it transpires he does.

Or something like that!

Second two were huge let-downs, but not necessarily bad movies imo. And they have Monica Bellucci in them, which is a major plus point for any movie. (Furthermore, if you have Enter the Matrix you can watch her get it on with Jada Pinkett Smith.)

I think the real world is a bit boring in these movies - the best parts of the initial movie were all in the matrix itself (Trinity's initial rooftop chase, the sparring program, subway fight, rescue of Morpheus etc.) Having too many scenes (like the rave) based in Zion slowed it all down for me. Still think some of the scenes, like the burly brawl, are excellent - if not slightly dated looking these days.

Edit - oh - and rushing a huge part of the film, showing only glimpses of what was happening (which expected you to play a computer game to fill the gaps) was a big no-no

Penn

Matrix 1 - Neo & gang betrayed by Cypher, chased by Agents through abandoned building, Morpheus V Smith, Morpheus captured, Neo and Trinity bust through building, Neo V Agent, helicopter, escape to subway, Neo V Smith, Neo chased by Agents, Neo killed, Neo arises and kills Smith.

Matrix 2 - Neo, Morpheus and "Keymaker" in hallways V lots of Smiths, Trinity V Agent in scene (most of which was already shown earlier in the film), Neo talks to beardy guy in chair for f*cking ages, Neo flies fast and catches Trinity and pulls a bullet out of her.

Matrix 3 - Neo talks to computer baby face, Neo V Smith in a fight which was way too OTT, stupid machine war in Zion, Neo wins by losing, war is over, Beardy guy and Oracle in stupid conversation, Indian girl makes sky look pretty.

In the third act of The Matrix 1, each scene got more awesome.
In the third act of The Matrix 2, each scene got more boring.
In the third act of The Matrix 3, each scene got more ridiculous.

FrostyJack

The main problem with the 2 sequels was most people didn't know what was going on (because most people are stupid and need everything spoon fed), this is why so many people were blown away by Inception. The other reason is because it should have been 1 sequel instead of 2. If all the Trinity love story and daily goings on in Zion were cut out it would have been a faster paced version of the first movie and not soooooo drawn out. I loved them both but they were far from perfect.

Tefral

Funnily enough i actually liked them. I did think Neo became far two powerful though which kind of destroyed the suspense. He was this omnipresent character in the 2nd and 3rd movie. Smith to me (even though he was growing in number) never really got back his scaryness from the first one.

Theres also the fact that with bullet time and all that it was a brilliant to watch. That "Wow" factor had weaned afterward because in the interim between the 1 and 2 movies, just about every ad and movie and game had it in as it was the new cool thing.

The movies i find are best watched all in the one day, like when your hungover on a sunday and dont want to move. The story line did go a little flat in places, however i got what they were trying to do and i echo the sentiments of the poster above who said the audiences are generally dumb, inception was a good movie, but i couldnt understand how people were saying it was hard to follow.. its not, its incredibly easy to follow, just like the matrix was.

I have to say: id love to see a short movie or something of what happened to neo afterward. I know someone told me there was a game brought out where Morphious dedicated his life to finding him.

NinjaK

I didnt see anything wrong with them either! Great trilogy!

Penn

I think it's unfair to claim most people are too stupid to understand what happened in the sequels. I understand exactly what happened. The problem is, what happened was f*cking boring. Stuff like The Architect should not have been at the end of the movie. Like I said, the ending to Matrix 1 was pretty much non-stop action for half an hour with some amazing sequences. The ending to Matrix 2 was a dude sitting in a f*cking chair explaining stuff.

Tefral

Penn wrote: »

I think it's unfair to claim most people are too stupid to understand what happened in the sequels. I understand exactly what happened. The problem is, what happened was f*cking boring.

Maybe its a little disingenuous to say they are all too dumb considering it was a scifi movie and they people that watch them are generally smarter than your average joe, however anyone ive spoken though who really hated them, tended to be people who like movies with Ashton Kutcher in..

I couldnt take their criticism seriously.

clever_name

The first movie gave characters a backstory, even if it was a just a couple of lines, the sequels just threw in a character with the backstory of "looks cool". The directors should have had a serious talk with the writers and told them to tighten up the story.;)

Also I always considered the third to be a spin-off more than a sequel, it was as if the characters from the original were making special guest appearances. The third one should not have been called The Matrix, was closer to Zion - the movie!

bullvine

The way they handled Trinity's Character, they brought her back to life at the end of the second one only for her to die in the third. The relief you gain by what happens in the second is crushed in the third film. That should never be done in a Trilogy.

Neo gains powers in the real world in the second, only for there being too many Sentinels to fight in the third one... When the third one starts, you think he'll be able to fight them all in the real world and then get left disappointed.

Making Neo lose his sight
The Architect talking utter poo
The Rediculous Rave scene
The burly brawl looked great but was pointless
Lack of Rob Dougan music in the third one.

MJ23

Matrix 2 & 3 were a let down. Morpheus speech in Zion, that part makes me put the cushion over my face, its so embarrassing. Too much time in Zion with the stupid machine war. Too much babble by the architect. I did enjoy the bit where Neo was stuck, and that big freak Trainman was in it.

Sabre0001

Should never have given Neo superpowers. I enjoyed rooting for him in an uphill battle (though I will say that I enjoyed the fight vs loads of Agents in the second one). Third movie lacked focus.

Dempsey

The 1st Matrix is just a great film. The story for the 2nd and 3rd film were poor and it didnt help that its basically one film split into 2.

Zubeneschamali

The explanations of what was going on in the first movie were nonsensical, but I could accept that none of the characters might realize it.

I can think of several ways this could have been used as the basis for sequels, but instead the movies pretended all that this bull was true, and added a bunch more nonsense on top just to arrange lots of special effects fights.

spankmaster2000

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Should never have given Neo superpowers. I enjoyed rooting for him in an uphill battle (though I will say that I enjoyed the fight vs loads of Agents in the second one). Third movie lacked focus.

I actually much preferred this fight from the 2nd film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm7yR1bsKq8

Mickeroo

Some great action scenes in reloaded in fairnes.

The main thing that went wrong I think is the Wachowski's believed their own hype. THe first film has pretty simple straight forward plot, they kept all the armchair philosophy and religious imagery to a minimum. The sequels got too caught up in all the psychobabble and iconography. Basically what went wrong with the sequels is the Wachowskis disappeared up their own arses.

kitakyushu

Forget about the underlying philsopical concepts that you're meant to be familiar with in order understand these movies, the actual problem with the sequels is quite simply that the 'reality' of this world (ie Zion and the perils to it society) just aren't as interesting as the idea of a exploring and mastering the artificial construct of the Matrix. Even Neo's overall journey towards unification and rebirth takes a backseat to this bloated grey world filled with uninteresting characters that essentially you don't care whether they live or die. That's simply bad storytelling.

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Some great action scenes in reloaded in fairnes.

The main thing that went wrong I think is the Wachowski's believed their own hype. THe first film has pretty simple straight forward plot, they kept all the armchair philosophy and religious imagery to a minimum. The sequels got too caught up in all the psychobabble and iconography. Basically what went wrong with the sequels is the Wachowskis disappeared up their own arses.

This. And anyone who says different is wrong.

bullvine

There is a lot to like in Reloaded in fairness like the Chateau fight, Smith taking over the real world body, Neo being able to stop the sentinels, also Merovingian was an awesome character but nothing at all in Revolutions, just a terrible terrible film

krudler

My biggest problem with the sequels, Revolutions in particular, was they reduced the three main characters to cameos in their own movie, Neo and Trinity disappear for over an hour of the middle act and Morpheus is reduced to a co-pilot. The fights and action scenes set in the matrix itself are far more interesting than the Zion battle, which just goes on forever and is never exciting aside from the initial dock breaching by the sentinels.

One thing I really wish they explored more in the sequels was the idea Cypher had of wanting to be put back in the matrix, surely he wasnt the only person out of the 250,000 inhabitants of Zion that actually prefered that existence? It would have made for a good theme to have an offset of people siding with the machines in the real world, or some sort of civil war aspect. The sequels have some great action and visuals but the original is leagues ahead of them in terms of story, and its not even that original to begin with but its a fantastic sum of its parts. like the entire third act of the movie is one extended action sequence, from the "guns, lots of guns" scene to Neo coming back to life after being shot is just one huge setpiece after another.

Sad Professor

I still think The Matrix is massively overrated. The first two acts are good, but the third act is extremely formulaic and was a sign of things to come.

Nevertheless, I dig some of the mythological aspects of the sequels. My biggest problem with them is that they seemed like a major shift in tone from the first film. They are too cheesy and comic booky. The first film, for all its flaws, felt closer to serious Sci-Fi.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

I still think The Matrix is massively overrated. The first two acts are good, but the third act is extremely formulaic and was a sign of things to come.

The action was what set it apart imo, it borrowed a lot from other films story wise but in terms of the action scenes it was a ground breaking film that influenced nearly every action film for the next ten years. I'm aware the wire work was taken straight out of hong kong cinema but it put a whole new spin on it and basically made wire work action mainstream. Apart from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon I'm not exactly sure if that was a good thing or not though

Morlar

All that ZION shíte killed it. There were one or two excellent set-pieces (the motorway chase - the gun-bot finale - even these pieces were too long) but other than that they were so far overblown as to be ruined.

Too dragged out plot wise. The arthitect waffle at the end is something I could barely watch the first time around. 1st remains the best by a wide margin. They should have stopped right there (or took a decade long break) instead of gone for the mega-sequel bucks.

bullvine

Maybe bringing Smith back was a bad idea as well, should have had a different Villain in the second one and then that would have done away with the entire plotline that Neo some how corrupted Smith when he took him over at the end of the first one.

foxyboxer

Greed.

Splitting what was essentially one movie into two parts to increase revenue.
The result of this was introducing too many extra characters to fill in the gaps (the keymaker, the merovingian etc) who take the (pardon the pun) focus away from the 3 main characters.

FrostyJack

Penn wrote: »

I think it's unfair to claim most people are too stupid to understand what happened in the sequels. I understand exactly what happened

I didn't say everyone, I said most. I know a lot of people found it boring (even I hate good chunks of it) but a lot of people were bored because they didn't have the foggiest what was going on, same people didn't like Tinker Tailor for the same reason. Your reasons for not liking it are perfectly valid and seem to be reflected in most of the posts above. Then again there are a lot of smart people here (not AH )

The King of Moo

In addition to what's already been said about nonsensical plotting, overemphasis on the cod-philosophy, focus on programs and giving Neo superpowers, I'd say that the sequels simply weren't necessary.

I think the first film was a great action sci-fi that had a fairly closed ending. Sure, strictly, it was left open as to what would happen next, but to me it seemed heavily implied that Neo would save humanity and free them from the Matrix, and in my opinion we didn't need to see that.
The first film also completed Neo's story arc from average Joe to hero and should've just left it at that.

Him flying off at the very end implied he had awesome powers and probably godlike control over the Matrix, but then in Reloaded they had to keep those powers but still try to make him relatable, so he's now just superstrong and able to fly. You got the worst of both worlds, a character who is unrelatable due to their tremendous powers, yet you also never get the satisfaction of seeing those amazing powers really being put to effective use (as someone mentioned earlier, he has powers over the real world at the end of Reloaded, but never gets to really use them).

The sequels just don't really feel like they follow on logically from the first one for me. The contrast between the perception of his awesome powers at the end of the first film, and then the uphill struggle they face in the sequels really jarred for me.

Banjaxed82

Everyone's replies are essentially correct when it comes to the problems with the story, plot, characterisation, etc.

In a broad stroke, here's what went wrong: The Wachowski's spent something like 4 years (at least) writing the first Matrix. I'd be surprised if they spent a fifth of that time writing each sequel. And there's where it went wrong. Like most sh!te that Hollywood produces it's fatally wounded before they even go into production.

Get the script right first, and then it's yours to f*ck up after that.

PauloConn

So we're in agreement, the Wachowski's took their greatest achievement and sold out for a couple of sequels?
I loved the first one so much, still watch it when hungover as well, its just excellent. As for the other 2, i don't even own them, not even bogey downloaded versions. To me, they don't exist and if i ever get a time machine i'm going back in time to stop them making them......
And I can't stand Ashton Kutcher

Dempsey

PauloConn wrote: »

So we're in agreement, the Wachowski's took their greatest achievement and sold out for a couple of sequels?
I loved the first one so much, still watch it when hungover as well, its just excellent. As for the other 2, i don't even own them, not even bogey downloaded versions. To me, they don't exist and if i ever get a time machine i'm going back in time to stop them making them......
And I can't stand Ashton Kutcher

ROFL

johnny_ultimate

A big problem is CG overdosing. The first Matrix film is a damn fine use of technology - it looks great even in its showier moments. They break the rules of physics carefully and knowingly - it's reality distorted, and that's what makes the effects so iconic.

Reloaded and Revolutions abandon any pretense of physicality. It's just absurd. None of the fights look in any ways real. The action sequences fail because they simply do not have the tech to render them. They're ridiculously OTT, especially the third film which becomes just another generic sci-fi blockbuster.

The Matrix showed a film - in contrast to the artificial nonsense of The Phantom Menace - that was able to sensibly utilise its budget and ever-improving technology to create some very memorable moments and special effects work. Alas, the processor improvements between it and its sequel allowed the filmmakers to indulge in cartoonish excesses that were at significant odds with the film that got them to that point.

ihsb

The Matrix Reloaded was my favourite of the three. I agree though... the last one was pure and utter sh!t.

kitakyushu

Oh and that 'cliff-hanger' at the end of part 2? Laughable! That should have been a clue as to how bad the last movie was going to be.

Goldstein

Nothing went wrong with Reloaded. It's one of the best action films ever made. They went off track in the last 20 minutes but it's a travesty to ignore the rest because of that.

Revolutions was the singular pile of turd.

Optimalprimerib

To this day the first one is my acid test for any movie. The greatest experience I have had in the cinema (watching a film anyway)

The 2nd one disappoints me the most. Each action sequence was 5 mins too long and it was so disjointed.

The third one was poo but the hype for the second taught me to never follow hype for a movie again.

krudler

I remember seeing this trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5yepZ21pI

and thinking it looked good, could be interesting, but wary of Reeves' last sci-fi outing, Johnny Mnemonic, wasnt expecting too much. I remember going to it on the night it came out, and by the time time Neo is dodging bullets thinking where the hell did this movie come out of, there was barely any hype about it.

Its weird watching that trailer now as none of the footage has the matrix green tint in it, which was more of a brownish/green in the original dvd release, they fixed it to make it look more like the sequels in the later dvd releases:

nyarlothothep

I didn't find the Architect speech long or boring, in fact I found it very interesting and something to mull over. While the sequels are fairly good imo they suffered from being conventional epic blockbusters whereas the first film had an abundance of style and ideas which were tightly packed in, it wasn't imo the typically bloated epic of Greek proportions that Hollywood churns out for the summer. I might also add that Neo discovering he is the messiah as he defeats Smith with the messianic like music in Matrix 1 is a kind of post humourous cinematic moment, whilst also being utterly cool.

The King of Moo

krudler wrote: »

and thinking it looked good, could be interesting, but wary of Reeves' last sci-fi outing, Johnny Mnemonic, wasnt expecting too much. I remember going to it on the night it came out, and by the time time Neo is dodging bullets thinking where the hell did this movie come out of, there was barely any hype about it.

Its weird watching that trailer now as none of the footage has the matrix green tint in it, which was more of a brownish/green in the original dvd release, they fixed it to make it look more like the sequels in the later dvd releases:

Watching the original recently reminded me of how they overdid it with the green tint in the sequels. I like that they didn't push it too much in the original as it helped the conceit that our world might actually be the illusion of the Matrix, because the world was the same as ours (in 1999), just slightly different.

But in the sequels I had to keep reminding myself that this greenish world with programs multiplying themselves hundredfold, or teleporting, was supposed to be a perfect recreation of 1999 for the people living inside it.
They felt less relevant and more like generic action sci-fi films.

FlashD

As I rightly remember, the Matrix went head to head with the Lord of the Rings for three Xmases. So seems to me like the Matrix sequels were rushed to the market just to compete,

......that and a heavy dose of greed from the Wachowski's. They could have had a solid brand and product but they blew it for the quick buck.....now they are nothing but damaged goods.

Turtyturd

The first one came out in 1999, Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001.
Reloaded was May 2003, The Two Towers 2002
Revolutions was NOV 2003, Return of the King was December 2003...so they kinda went head to head.

But don't be making excuses for the Wachowskis.

Fysh

The sad thing is that the Animatrix demonstrated a much better way of following up the first film than either sequel (as has been said, Reloaded had some decent segments, but the story was still a load of arse).

Given that the first film had already dealt with Neo's Hero Journey, for the sequels to work they would need to have widened the narrative focus by introducing newer characters both inside the Matrix and outside in Zion who had interesting story arcs of their own that could fit into the larger "war against the machines" storyline.

FlashD

Turtyturd wrote: »

The first one came out in 1999, Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001.
Reloaded was May 2003, The Two Towers 2002
Revolutions was NOV 2003, Return of the King was December 2003...so they kinda went head to head.

But don't be making excuses for the Wachowskis.

:D Really?....sh*t man! I was way off, must have killed all my brain cells from back then. :pac:

Thanks for the clear up.

bullvine

Fysh wrote: »

The sad thing is that the Animatrix demonstrated a much better way of following up the first film than either sequel (as has been said, Reloaded had some decent segments, but the story was still a load of arse).

Given that the first film had already dealt with Neo's Hero Journey, for the sequels to work they would need to have widened the narrative focus by introducing newer characters both inside the Matrix and outside in Zion who had interesting story arcs of their own that could fit into the larger "war against the machines" storyline.

The Second Renaisance Segment was awesome and so well written you'd wonder how they couldn't have used some of them skills in the sequels.