The Matrix Rebooted

Brief_Lives

Brace Yourselves......

http://movieweb.com/matrix-reboot-production-warner-bros-studio/

There is often complains from the moviegoing public that Hollywood isn't dealing in original ideas enough these days and that they are a little reboot happy. Hollywood may have gone too far this time. It looks like, as hard as it may be to believe, Warner Bros. is actually looking at doing a reboot or "relaunch" of The Matrix. Yes. This is happening.

Brace yourselves, because this news is coming from a very reliable source and though the project is in the very early stages, it most definitely appears to be a real thing. According to The Hollywood Reporter Warner Bros. is in talk with Zak Penn to write a treatment for this reboot of The Matrix. THR made it clear that they don't know what shape the project will take, specifically using the word "relaunch." It could be a full-on reboot, a sequel, or a requel, if you will. Something in between. Either way, this is something fans may need to come to terms with. Warner Bros. is pretty brave, given that The Matrix is one of the most beloved and iconic sci-fi movies ever made. And that may be putting it lightly.

me_irl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGc-iPc-9dE

Sabre0001

The original Matrix was so good because it was shot down so many times and had to be tweaked and honed. Then you throw in great performances, CGI, and action sequences and you had a great movie!

I would prefer they just left the first as is. Mess around with the second and third if you want! Would be happy to see more from the universe itself though.

Keyzer

I've always wondered why they didn't continue with this franchise considering the first movie came out 18 years ago. I still remember seeing it for the first and being blown away. The second and third movies were very disappointing but they still made a fortune.

If done properly with a solid cast and a really good story line, this could be good. But it will never have the same impact as the first movie.

GavRedKing

I'd prefer if they went another route and explored the Matrix universe TBH.

The 1st film was good, the 2nd and 3rd were gash so I dont really see the need for a re-boot but if it makes sense ($$$$$) they'll sign off on it.

lazybones32

Why not devote the resources to reproducing some of The Animatrix for the big screen? I'd love to see a remake and expansion of the Second Renaissance; it could be a classic if dealt with correctly.

brevity

I'm ok with it this once they get the right people in and do it properly. Maybe revisit some of the stories in the Animatrix...

The originals havent aged very well imo.

I haven't heard about this Zack Penn person before but he has a substantial back catalogue of writing and is working with Spielberg​ on Ready Player One so that's gotta be good, right?

me_irl

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'd prefer if they went another route and explored the Matrix universe TBH.

The 1st film was good, the 2nd and 3rd were gash so I dont really see the need for a re-boot but if it makes sense ($$$$$) they'll sign off on it.

I also wonder where they can go other than a few video games and The Animatrix though. The franchise had seemed to run its course.

Could they set up an alternate reality augmented universe? Like another Neo running parallel to this one? From what I remember, I think they touched on that point too.

There's very little scope to delve in to and expand the "real world is virtual reality and I'm a super hero hacker with ninja skills" plot.

But, because the first is a classic, I bet this is going to be a beat-by-beat remake to pull in that maudlin money. "Oh hey, I remember (member) The Matrix... and it was good... so this should be good!"

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sad Professor

In fairness, doesn't the third film end with the Matrix literally rebooting?

I re-watched the trilogy recently. First film is derivative as hell and the visual effects are clever if not particularly special. The film wasn't to my taste at the time, but I can't deny the many things it does well. The script is incredibly well structured. The second film has a spectacular car chase sequence, but like the third film feels rushed. The decision to shoot them back to back was a mistake and suggests the studio didn't have much confidence in the franchise. The same films today would have undergone Rogue One-esque reshoots before being released. It's shame because I think there was a good trilogy in there somewhere.

silverharp

lazy Hollywood , they wont be getting any green off me this time even though I enjoyed the original movies

Lorelli!

I don't understand why theyd need to remake it. Tbh I only really liked the first one but the others were alright. Whenever they do that with movies it just puts a bad slant on the original. Remake bad movies that had potential.

I was watching the original Charlie and The Chocolate Factory with a young relative of mine and they loved it still, it didn't age. The remake with Johnny Depp was really awful, nothing memorable or special about it

Bacchus

Sad Professor wrote: »

In fairness, doesn't the third film end with the Matrix literally rebooting?

I re-watched the trilogy recently. First film is derivative as hell and the visual effects are clever if not particularly special. The film wasn't to my taste at the time, but I can't deny the many things it does well. The script is incredibly well structured. The second film has a spectacular car chase sequence, but like the third film feels rushed. The decision to shoot them back to back was a mistake and suggests the studio didn't have much confidence in the franchise. The same films today would have undergone Rogue One-esque reshoots before being released. It's shame because I think there was a good trilogy in there somewhere.

The visual effects aren't "particularly special"? Sure, now they look average enough but 18 years ago they floored audiences and revolutionized the Hollywood action flick. I still think the hold up well today... better than some of the stuff in the sequels anyway.

How is shooting back-to-back an indicator that a studio lacks confidence? Is it not the opposite? They felt so confident that it'd be a success that they didn't even wait to see how part 2 fared. The Matrix sequels were 'money in the bank'.

The original trilogy is a fantastic piece of sci-fi and action but it got weighed down with in over convoluted mess of remainders of an algorithm, architect, ergo, etc. and the mix of 'real world' and Matrix action in part 3 wasn't as good as the action we got in the predecessors. The hell club scene in particular was such a let down in terms of the action and that was the main action-y bit to get you all the way to the climatic battles. Smith in the real world was another misstep IMO.

Regarding the studios current plans. I wish they had just explored the Matrix universe and told more stories in the world they already created. The problem is though all the baggage from the originals. They could explore the truce and next iteration of the Matrix but that already comes with so many confusing questions about how that actually works. If they go back to earlier in the Matrix then it has the shadow of the originals over it cause we all know where it's going..... so maybe a reboot is the best way forward... keep what was great and cut out all the Jesus stuff... and the architect... and don't make anyone Superman.

Agent Coulson

Just keep the Wachowski's as far away from it as possible.

constitutionus

i wouldnt mind seeing a series of prequels TBH to show how the AI came into being and how it took over the world.

i know its touched upon in the animatrix but theres scope to show how a "ghost in the machine" type world ended up getting fecked by a true AI.

People tend to forget that weve no idea what year that was in as all the records were lost so theres no reason its gotta be set in the present day. could be all happening in 2090 for all we know.

i doubt theyll go that route though, far easier to just build what the original three did.

Bacchus

constitutionus wrote: »

i doubt theyll go that route though, far easier to just build what the original three did.

Three things I'd like from a reboot (if that is what's happening)...

1. Come up with something new... not Neo version 8... or whatever version he's on.
2. It has to be a clean reboot. Do NOT try to wedge it in as the next iteration of the Matrix. If you're gonna do that, be 100% committed to the movie being set in the same universe.
3. Make sure the actors 'know kung fu'. Keanu brought such an intensity and dedication to the fights (particularly in the first movie). If the fights come off too light and overly reliant on CGI, it just won't work.

TheDoc

This is pretty mental stuff.

Big fan of the trilogy, can forgo the clear flaws and issues (actually despise the rubbish CGI in the second and third) for just the enjoyment I have of them.

I kind of always would have liked a 4th where Neo was a programme, and formed like a "Trinity" with the Architect and the Oracle. And I'm sure someone could whip up a story where **** goes haywire in the Matrix.

Sorry I just don't see me taking to a Matrix film without Reeves as Neo

BrokenArrows

It would be better to have a new movie instead of a remake.
If Keanu was to return then they would obviously have to do a new movie.

Would be interesting to see what world they come up with for machines and humans living in harmony and how it all goes tits up.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Brief_Lives

....... wrote: »

He has barely aged and his choreographed dance/fight skills have only improved in the past 2 decades so he could revisit the role.

His work in the John Wick movies is spectacular...
He is very capable for the fight scenes..

seamus

Neo died at the end of the 3rd film. It setup the reality that another neo-esque individual would likely emerge in the Matrix again, but recasting Reeves as that individual would just be silly. He will have visibly aged, or the CGI retouch to de-age him will be obvious.

The mistakes they made with the 2nd and 3rd films was trying to shoehorn 4 movies' worth of material into 2 films. The end result was something which was both rushed and a bit confusing, but also slow and pointless in parts.

They should have either cut all the superfluous stuff back to a single film or expanded the franchise to more movies. Marvel got this right with X-Men - release a big movie, then a side-story, then another big movie that leans heavily on the side-story, and so on. Every film doesn't need to linearly connect to the last one released, but when put together they all tie into the main X-Men narrative.

The effects were also an issue. Where the first movie relied heavily on practical effects augmented with CGI, the 2nd movie put CGI effects far too front-and-centre, with the result that they became obvious and looked a bit ridiculous.

Like others I think an expansion on some of the stories and themes in the Animatrix would be well received, but they're aiming for a new audience now. There will be so many 15-25 years olds who've never even seen the original trilogy, never mind the Animatrix.

Picking up after the 3rd film would be a good way to go. You've got a newly-found truce between humanity and the machines, most of the main players from the original trilogy are dead, and so many possibilities to explore in an open Matrix where humans are not prevented from leaving.

helimachoptor

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That i would like to see

Sad Professor

Bacchus wrote: »

The visual effects aren't "particularly special"? Sure, now they look average enough but 18 years ago they floored audiences and revolutionized the Hollywood action flick. I still think the hold up well today... better than some of the stuff in the sequels anyway.

Okay, there are two visual effects that the film is well known for: The slow motion bullet dodging and the 360 degree freeze frame pan.

The bullet dodging was an over-cranked camera on a dolly with CGI bullets added in. Slow motion fight scenes were not new and Blade had done almost the exact same slow motion dodging effect with CGI bullets a year earlier.

The 360 degree freeze frame pan was the bigger deal. But it had also been used before, most notable in Lost in Space the year before and in a GAP commercial.

Both effects proved more faddish than revolutionary. They were an innovative use of existing visual effects that had been developed at the time and could be used cost effectively in a way that worked extremely well in the world of The Matrix... but almost no where else except video games. Most other movies that used these effects were accused of being bad Matrix rip-offs.

How is shooting back-to-back an indicator that a studio lacks confidence? Is it not the opposite? They felt so confident that it'd be a success that they didn't even wait to see how part 2 fared. The Matrix sequels were 'money in the bank'.

The scripts for the sequels were clearly rushed and don't exhibit anywhere close to the polish the first film's script had. They could have shot both films separately 3 years apart as is the norm, or they could have taken an extra year or two to polish the scripts before shooting them back-to-back. The decision to rush both into production to be ready to be released 6 months apart in 2003 suggests to me a lack of confidence that audiences would still be interested in The Matrix after more than 4 years. But maybe I'm wrong.

Bacchus

Sad Professor wrote: »

Okay, there are two visual effects that the film is well known for: The slow motion bullet dodging and the 360 degree freeze frame pan.

The bullet dodging was an over-cranked camera on a dolly with CGI bullets added in. Slow motion fight scenes were not new and Blade had done almost the exact same slow motion dodging effect with CGI bullets a year earlier.

The 360 degree freeze frame pan was the bigger deal. But it had also been used before, most notable in Lost in Space the year before and in a GAP commercial.

Both effects proved more faddish than revolutionary. They were an innovative use of existing visual effects that had been developed at the time and could be used cost effectively in a way that worked extremely well in the world of The Matrix... but almost no where else except video games. Most other movies that used these effects were accused of being bad Matrix rip-offs.

Ok yes, they leaned on what went before them but... so? Star Wars was revolutionary too but it essentially took bits of many many other movies to create something unique. That's what, IMO, The Matrix did. It built on what had gone before, cranked it up and packaged it in a story that fit like a glove. The use of technology for those money shots (and there were more than just two) is just one aspect of the whole visual experience of The Matrix. Even the simple use of greens and blues for Matrix world vs real world was a wonderfully simple visual cue. The choreography in the fights themselves and the mix of martial arts and guns was quite breathtaking too and I'd still be on the edge of my seat watching the Smith - Neo fight or the Smith - Morpheus scrap in the bathroom. And then you have all the real world stuff with the machines. TBH, I don't know how it can be argued that The Matrix is anything other than a visual feast. Particularly given the state of action/sci-fi movies at the time. That same year brought us the blandness of Star Wars Ep I (Maul fights were pretty but not a patch on Matrix) and The Mummy.

Oh, I'd also agree that Blade was a landmark movie too. Looked great, had brilliant action and visual flair and it pretty much kicked off what is now the modern comic book movie juggernaut.

Sad Professor wrote: »

The scripts for the sequels were clearly rushed and don't exhibit anywhere close to the polish the first film's script had. They could have shot both films separately 3 years apart as is the norm, or they could have taken an extra year or two to polish the scripts before shooting them back-to-back. The decision to rush both into production to be ready to be released 6 months apart in 2003 suggests to me a lack of confidence that audiences would still be interested in The Matrix after more than 4 years. But maybe I'm wrong.

I think it's the opposite. To me that looks like a studio that was over confident in what the Wachoskis could do and basically gave them too much freedom to... well get a bit weird. I totally agree the whole thing needed more time to get right but I don't see how it adds up to a lack of confidence.

Sand

Isn't the core problem with the Matrix franchise that its hard to have tension or drama when the hero is literally so powerful that all threats are rendered trivial? The first Matrix is the best film because Neo is at his weakest, facing off against agents who are faster than him, stronger than him and near omniscient to boot. When he stops running and turns to fight Smith in the subway, its a big moment in the story. The victim is turning to face the bully. Its heroic and the audience is rooting for him.

By the 2nd and 3rd movies he is routinely fighting and defeating hundreds of agents without breaking sweat. He isnt afraid anymore, and neither is the audience. Its about as compelling as playing a video game on god mode. His colleagues still have some risk, but they literally have the Son of God on quick dial - were they ever in real danger in the (brilliant) motorway sequence when Neo can and did just swoop in to bail them out?

I think any further Matrix movies have to ditch Neo or similar all powerful characters and focus on the lesser humans who are actually risking their lives and face genuine threats, but as Morpheus and Trinity demonstrated are still capable of impressive feats.

Sad Professor

Bacchus wrote: »

Ok yes, they leaned on what went before them but... so? Star Wars was revolutionary too but it essentially took bits of many many other movies to create something unique. That's what, IMO, The Matrix did. It built on what had gone before, cranked it up and packaged it in a story that fit like a glove. The use of technology for those money shots (and there were more than just two) is just one aspect of the whole visual experience of The Matrix. Even the simple use of greens and blues for Matrix world vs real world was a wonderfully simple visual cue. The choreography in the fights themselves and the mix of martial arts and guns was quite breathtaking too and I'd still be on the edge of my seat watching the Smith - Neo fight or the Smith - Morpheus scrap in the bathroom. And then you have all the real world stuff with the machines. TBH, I don't know how it can be argued that The Matrix is anything other than a visual feast. Particularly given the state of action/sci-fi movies at the time. That same year brought us the blandness of Star Wars Ep I (Maul fights were pretty but not a patch on Matrix) and The Mummy.

Yes, it's a great pastiche of different influences, many of which hadn't previously been huge sources of inspiration to American filmmakers and as such felt very fresh to audiences at the time. Blade Runner, Hong Kong action movies, Japanese anime, etc. But I was talking specifically about the visual effects (rather than the visual design or the fight scenes) and neither of the two effects I mentioned were particularly significant beyond the film itself. As I explained, they had either been used before or were subsequently used in a faddish manner aside from in video games. That’s not what I’d consider revolutionary visual effects in the way that Star Wars or Jurassic Park was. Even TPM, which lost the Best Visual Effects Oscar to The Matrix, broke a lot more ground in terms of CGI characters and CGI world building which, regardless of the quality of the film itself, can still be seen in films today.

Sand wrote: »

Isn't the core problem with the Matrix franchise that its hard to have tension or drama when the hero is literally so powerful that all threats are rendered trivial? The first Matrix is the best film because Neo is at his weakest, facing off against agents who are faster than him, stronger than him and near omniscient to boot. When he stops running and turns to fight Smith in the subway, its a big moment in the story. The victim is turning to face the bully. Its heroic and the audience is rooting for him.

By the 2nd and 3rd movies he is routinely fighting and defeating hundreds of agents without breaking sweat. He isnt afraid anymore, and neither is the audience. Its about as compelling as playing a video game on god mode. His colleagues still have some risk, but they literally have the Son of God on quick dial - were they ever in real danger in the (brilliant) motorway sequence when Neo can and did just swoop in to bail them out?

I think any further Matrix movies have to ditch Neo or similar all powerful characters and focus on the lesser humans who are actually risking their lives and face genuine threats, but as Morpheus and Trinity demonstrated are still capable of impressive feats.

It’s the Superman problem. The solution is to give him a more powerful or more intelligent villain or a potentially devastating weakness. Neo’s only weakness was Trinity and when she died he just brought her back to life which was a cop out. Trinity should have died at the end of Reloaded. She had nothing to do in the third film except die (again) anyway.

spacecoyote

No

Sand

Sad Professor wrote: »

It’s the Superman problem. The solution is to give him a more powerful or more intelligent villain or a potentially devastating weakness. Neo’s only weakness was Trinity and when she died he just brought her back to life which was a cop out. Trinity should have died at the end of Reloaded. She had nothing to do in the third film except die (again) anyway.

And as the power level of the hero and the villains accelerate away from the audience's own experience, so does the engagement in my view. Even a figure who has only a single flaw or nemesis is still an alien to an audience member who is reminded daily over the variety of things that can give him cancer.

The Matrix had a god like figure fighting slightly less powerful gods for reasons and causes the vast majority of people plugged into the matrix were not aware of or understood. Most of them were not even aware of the existential struggle being waged, nominally on their behalf. There is a potential story there, exploring the lives of people who are written off as pawns or other wise trivial 'collateral damage' with Neo being an off screen force that invalidates the other fighters, their sacrifices and their triumphs because ultimately he doesn't need them. He is destined. They are filler.

The above is a little grim, but if they are going to look at the Matrix again they need to look at it from a different angle. Repeating the same basic story of The Chosen One will result in the same cul de sac where there is nowhere to go after the apprenticeship stage of the story is over.

First movie was a modern masterpiece of perfection.
Mind blowing story, action and visuals
When neo wakes in the pod in the real world after taking the pill, boom!!!!
The 2nd and 3rd movie were a huge undertaking and lacked the same quality control as the first. Too many scenes just looked fake, relied too much on cgi, whereas the first movie was shot so well and you could see that so much thought went into every scene, I did not get this feeling from watching 2 and 3. Even the way the 2nd movie starts doesn't feel right, like no heart went into it

I like parts of the 2nd and parts of the 3rd
Overall I think they told a great story. Watched them all recently, can't help but admire the people who come together to make these movies. Big ideas which need big money

I would like to see Keanu in any new movies. Perhaps make him a completely different character. It's the matrix, they can do whatever they want

But please lay off the cgi

Bacchus

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yes, it's a great pastiche of different influences, many of which hadn't previously been huge sources of inspiration to American filmmakers and as such felt very fresh to audiences at the time. Blade Runner, Hong Kong action movies, Japanese anime, etc. But I was talking specifically about the visual effects (rather than the visual design or the fight scenes) and neither of the two effects I mentioned were particularly significant beyond the film itself. As I explained, they had either been used before or were subsequently used in a faddish manner aside from in video games. That’s not what I’d consider revolutionary visual effects in the way that Star Wars or Jurassic Park was. Even TPM, which lost the Best Visual Effects Oscar to The Matrix, broke a lot more ground in terms of CGI characters and CGI world building which, regardless of the quality of the film itself, can still be seen in films today.

Fine, I can agree that from a purely technical achievement standpoint, yeah The Matrix didn't do anything particularly new... just like 99% of movies ever made. I don't think TPM did anything particularly new in that respect either. They just did what was already been done but on a much larger scale (I think it had the highest number of effects shots at the time). Jar Jar wasn't a revolution in CGI technology, he was just the next iteration of a set of technologies that already existed (look even at the Star Wars special editions). I'm not dismissing TPM's achievements (the scale and finish of the effect was outstanding - pod race in particular) but if we're qualifying 'special' visual effects on how revolutionary they are then there's only a handful of movies that fit that bill and they are becoming more of a rarity as CGI is so ubiquitous (Gravity stands out in my mind as a recent one and I'm sure it can be argued that it only took existing ideas and repackaged them too) and therefore saying The Matrix wasn't "particularly special" is inconsequential.

What The Matrix did do was create a visually dynamic masterpiece that blended camera technology, CGI, intense and beautifully choreographed fight sequences. And yes, I still take your point that "technically" The Matrix was nothing particularly new but the sum of the parts created probably one of the most visually iconic movies of the 90s (alongside... but behind... T2 and JP).

conorhal

Sigh.....These days the words 'reboot' or 'reimagining' make me want to curl into a fetal postion on the floor and start rocking...

While I still love the original, it does however have it's flaws, as pointed out here by the Nostalgia Critic, his review for the Matirx trilogy is a bloody hilarious sketch filling skewering of the film only bettered by his Jurassic Park series reviews.

KilOit

Movie version of the Animatrix Second Renaissance, trilogy of that would be amazing! frightening stuff

Zak Penn

Right, when I heard 'Matrix reboot' the other day my bones shuddered. I thought that Hollywood were finding new depths to that barrel.

However, after reading some tweets from the guy hired to write the script, I am feeling a bit better...

Zak Penn wrote:

All I can say at this point is no one could or should REBOOT ‘The Matrix. People who know ‘Animatrix’ and the comics understand.

Can’t comment yet except to say that the words ‘reboot’ and ‘remake’ were from an article. Let’s stop responding to inaccurate news.

Do I want to see more stories set in the universe of ‘The Matrix’? Yes. Because it’s a brilliant idea that generates great stories.”

Look at what people are doing with Xmen universe. Between Logan and Legion and Deadpool, does anyone want them to stop? Not me.

How about just re-release the matrix? Don't reboot it, you can't do better.

If I were going to recast Keanu Reeves, I would cast Keanu Reeves.

Relevant article: http://www.superherohype.com/news/393219-new-matrix-not-remake

Keplar240B

There should be a rule that each film name is unique and cannot be reused.

:cool:

Sabre0001

The original was released Stateside 18 years ago today! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/matrix-thrs-1999-review-743651?facebook_20170331

Tin_Cup

Looks like this is in the works again with the Wachowskis involved.

https://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/the-matrix/66036/matrix-movie-reboot-report-wachowskis-return

El Duda

Remember the days when Nostalgia critic was actually Nostalgia critic and not 'Cosplay critic'?

His videos are unwatchable now.

branie2

The originals are best

nyarlothothep

I didn't mind the second or third films that much. They were overlong and quite boring in places but the conversation with the Architect was one of my favourite scenes in the trilogy.

buser2x

leave the original alone

pah

I have tickets to see this in the omniplex on 12July for the 20th anniversary.

Kiith

Holy ****, didn't realise it was being re-released. Definitely going to see this now.