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

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.