DollarStoreChili Posted September 10, 2021 Didn't ask for it, don't want it, won't watch it. I don't watch remakes or 20 year sequels unless they're so loosely connected to the originals that they're basically their own movie. A good example would be mad Max fury road. Not truly a sequel or a remake, but has a few minor connections to previous films. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) On 9/10/2021 at 11:55 AM, DavetheDoomguy said: I think Neo being resurrected is to help Zion free the rest of humanity and destroy the machines once and for all. I hope not. We know from The Animatrix that the Machines are ultimately not evil and that they have as much right to exist as humans, so it would be kind of shitty to have them suddenly become straightforward villains here. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 2 Quote Share this post Link to post
Antkibo Posted September 12, 2021 I don't care much about it, but heck people, Part 2 and Part 3 weren't good either. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Antkibo said: I don't care much about it, but heck people, Part 2 and Part 3 weren't good either. I disagree. Bloated and overly ambitious, maybe, but definitely not bad. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Dweller Dark Posted September 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Rudolph said: I hope not. We know from The Animatrix that the Machines are ultimately not evil and that they have as much right to exist as humans, so it would be kind of shitty to have them suddenly become straightforward villains here. While the machines aren't evil, I can imagine some of the residents of Zion view them as such because of everything that happened at the end of the war, even if Neo did make a truce on behalf of humanity. And, as far as we know, the machines probably still have the rest of humanity powering them. I didn't think of it earlier, but the opposite of my scenario could also be a possibility, that the people who rescue Neo want to prevent a new war from breaking out. But that wouldn't explain why the Agents still go after Neo and people he associates with, and it seems like Smith (or at least the incarnation we know) is absent so far. While there's a lot to speculate on in the trailer, there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer on who the villain will be, so it could be anyone or anything at this point. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 1 minute ago, DavetheDoomguy said: While there's a lot to speculate on in the trailer, there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer on who the villain will be, so it could be anyone or anything at this point. We know Lambert Wilson is back as the Merovingian. While he was an interesting addition to the Matrix's universe, he was ultimately sort of unnecessary to the plot of Reloaded and Revolutions, so here is to hoping that Resurrections gives him more to do this time. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Dweller Dark Posted September 12, 2021 Just now, Rudolph said: We know Lambert Wilson is back as the Merovingian. While he was an interesting addition to the Matrix's universe, he was ultimately sort of unnecessary to the plot of Reloaded and Revolutions, so here is to hoping that Resurrections gives him more to do this time. That's a possibility, and it's not really explained if he was aware of the Matrix' "reset" like the Architect, Oracle, and Sati were at the end of Revolutions. But I did find a few interesting frames while combing through the trailer: 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Dweller Dark Posted September 12, 2021 From these frames, it does look like Neo is being resurrected by the machines and rescued by this new team, but the face of the guy holding the Desert Eagle in that one shot looks like he could be the Merovingian, but the blur makes it hard to tell for sure. Considering the Agents use Desert Eagles the most, it would make sense that it's one of them, but it might raise some questions if it's not. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, DavetheDoomguy said: From these frames, it does look like Neo is being resurrected by the machines and rescued by this new team, but the face of the guy holding the Desert Eagle in that one shot looks like he could be the Merovingian, but the blur makes it hard to tell for sure. Considering the Agents use Desert Eagles the most, it would make sense that it's one of them, but it might raise some questions if it's not. Maybe the whole movie is going to be some sort of stand-alone soft remake of the whole Merovingian subplot from Reloaded and Revolutions, i.e. the Merovingian's gang and the Redpillers wrestling control over a rogue program (in this case, Neo), causing the Machines to become involved in some fashion. Which would be a good choice, since the entire Merovingian subplot in the sequels deserves to be its own movie rather than an extended subplot that is there mainly to pad the running time so that they could make two movies rather than one. Which is why I think of the Matrix sequels as bloated rather than bad. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 2 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 Reloaded and Revolutions are ridiculously terrible movies. All exposition and there's no tension in any of the action scenes. Neo is too powerful so half the movies are about concocting reasons for Neo to be anywhere except where the plot takes place because otherwise he would solve everything too easily. And the exposition dumps wouldn't be too bad if any of it were well thought out, but it's not. It's just pretentious, sophomoric technobabble on top of pretentious, sophomoric psychobabble. The Matrix was great and the Wachowskis should have retired when it released and not revealed to the world that they're hacks who stumbled onto a one-hit wonder. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post
Dweller Dark Posted September 12, 2021 55 minutes ago, Rudolph said: Maybe the whole movie is going to be some sort of stand-alone soft remake of the whole Merovingian subplot from Reloaded and Revolutions, i.e. the Merovingian's gang and the Redpillers wrestling control over a rogue program (in this case, Neo), causing the Machines to become involved in some fashion. Which would be a good choice, since the entire Merovingian subplot in the sequels deserves to be its own movie rather than an extended subplot that is there mainly to pad the running time so that they could make two movies rather than one. Which is why I think of the Matrix sequels as bloated rather than bad. I just looked up the Merovingian to remind myself what he looks like, and he looks incredibly similar to the Desert Eagle guy, even with that amount of blur covering the face. It's not easy to tell, but the hairstyle and face structure are very close to the Merovingian's. And Lambert Wilson is in the imdb site as the Merovingian for Resurrection too, so whether or not he's the main villain, he's probably going to have some important role to play. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 13 hours ago, Rudolph said: I disagree. Bloated and overly ambitious, maybe, but definitely not bad. They weren't ambitious at all. They're two movies where none of the action scenes really matter and none of the plot makes any sense. Just several hours worth of shallow, surface level concepts being treated like they're revolutionary ideas. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, famicommander said: They weren't ambitious at all. They absolutely were. A non-ambitious sequel would have played it incredibly safe and been little more than a remake of the original, i.e. all the Terminator sequels. Instead, the Wachowskis pushed the envelope and came up with something rather bold and unique that takes the story in a completely different direction. You might not like it, but you cannot deny the ambition there. And yes, the sequels do feature revolutionary ideas, dealing with themes such as manufacturing consent, fascism (Smith becomes disillusioned and alienated by the Matrix, just like Neo, but unlike Neo, he wants to take it over for himself rather than dismantling it), systems of oppression and privilege as well as liberation theology, right down to having Dr. Cornel West do a cameo. That, and the strong genderqueer subtext, is quite impressive for a couple of mainstream action movies released in the early 2000s. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 1 Quote Share this post Link to post
[McD] James Posted September 12, 2021 The 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies were bloated, boring, and pretentious, but they were still ambitious as hell. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 50 minutes ago, Rudolph said: They absolutely were. A non-ambitious sequel would have played it incredibly safe and been little more than a remake of the original, i.e. all the Terminator sequels. Instead, the Wachowskis pushed the envelope and came up with something rather bold and unique that takes the story in a completely different direction. You might not like it, but you cannot deny the ambition there. And yes, the sequels do feature revolutionary ideas, dealing with themes such as manufacturing consent, fascism (Smith becomes disillusioned and alienated by the Matrix, just like Neo, but unlike Neo, he wants to take it over for himself rather than dismantling it), systems of oppression and privilege as well as liberation theology, right down to having Dr. Cornel West do a cameo. That, and the strong genderqueer subtext, is quite impressive for a couple of mainstream action movies released in the early 2000s. None of the people involved with the creative aspect of the movie are anywhere near intelligent enough to scratch the surface of any of those topics. The movies are incredibly dumb. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, famicommander said: None of the people involved with the creative aspect of the movie are anywhere near intelligent enough to scratch the surface of any of those topics. No need to get ableist there. At the end of the day, the Matrix movies are still Hollywood action movies: of course, they were not going to explore these topics in great details. That does not make their willingness to (mostly sneakily) introduce a mainstream audience to revolutionary concepts any less ambitious and impressive - especially given the context of the racist, homophobic and oppressive George W. Bush era. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Rudolph said: No need to get ableist there. All the Matrix movies are Hollywood action movies: of course, they were not going to explore these topics in great details. That does not make their willingness to introduce a mainstream audience to revolutionary concepts any less ambitious and impressive. Their level of discourse is essentially just mentioning those things. That's not ambitious or impressive. They have no insight to offer, they have nothing substantial to add to any of these discussions besides the trans allegory. The two movies have far less substance than the first and yet they spend 5X as much time "explaining" the substance of their plot directly to the audience. Less is more, show don't tell. Very basic film-making sins. Blade Runner 2049 is a Hollywood action movie too but it has a clear thesis about what it's trying to say rather than just spitting up a word salad of fancy sounding terms it doesn't clearly grasp. Dune is about to release and that book has more substance in any random paragraph than the entirety of the Matrix sequels. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) @famicommander Have you considered the possibility that it is you who simply do not get it? Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 Just now, Rudolph said: @famicommander Have you considered the possibility that it is you who simply do not get it? Everyone that likes a pretentious movie with a nonsense plot tries to say that critics just don't get it. Donnie Darko, the Matrix sequels, Inception. People think if they're sufficiently confused it means what they're watching is smart, but sometimes it just means it's poorly thought out drivel. As is the case with the mentioned movies. If you want modern science fiction movies that actually wrestle with substantial topics in a coherent fashion, all you have to do is look at Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, soon Dune) and Alex Garland (Dredd, Ex Machina, Annihliation). 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, famicommander said: If you want modern science fiction movies that actually wrestle with substantial topics in a coherent fashion, all you have to do is look at Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, soon Dune) and Alex Garland (Dredd, Ex Machina, Annihliation). Two super centrist dudes who literally have no lived experienced in regard to the themes they tackle and as such have the most superficial understanding, yet you have the audacity of claiming that they have more to say than two left-wing trans women... Also, "Dredd" is easily one of the worst movies I have seen in years; it is like RoboCop without the satirical edge and with laughable effects. It might be better than Stallone's Judge Dredd, but it is really not ambitious or impressive at all as a movie. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Rudolph said: Two centrist white dudes who literally have no lived experienced relating the themes they tackle, yet you have the audacity of claiming that they have more to say than two left-wing trans women... Also, "Dread" is easily one of the worst movies I have seen in years; it is like RoboCop without the satirical edge. So you called me an "ableist" for saying that the Wachowski movies are dumb, but it's okay for you to dismiss the entire life experiences of two people based on their races, genders, sexes, and the unsubstantiated political leanings you've projected upon them? And if you didn't catch the satire in Dredd (not "Dread") then you've got no business accusing ANYONE of not understanding ANYTHING in a movie. Edited September 12, 2021 by famicommander 1 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 34 minutes ago, famicommander said: So you called me an "ableist" for saying that the Wachowski movies are dumb, but it's okay for you to dismiss the entire life experiences of two people based on their races, genders, sexes, and the unsubstantiated political leanings you've projected upon them? No, I called you ableist for claiming the people behind the Matrix movies were unintelligent... And yes, I do think it is weird of you that you would be praising milquetoast, middle-of-the-road directors like Villeneuve and Garland as having somehow deeper insights on topics (that do not affect them) than two left-wing trans women who came up with their own original intellectual property that doubles as a left-wing trans liberation metaphor. I hate Christopher Nolan and I have no idea why you would lump him with the Wachowskis rather than the likes of Villeneuve and Garland. And yes, Dredd is not satirical: it is a straightforward action movie where the good guys are perfectly good and the bad guys are perfectly bad and there is little in the way of subtext. It is no RoboCop. Of all the Denis Villeneuve movies I have seen, I have only liked Arrival, but I would not call it a very bold or ambitious movie (apart perhaps the ending, which is pretty clever): it is a very conventional science-fiction movie that does not have much to say about the world. It is really bold of you to claim that this is a more profound movie than the Matrix Trilogy. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
famicommander Posted September 12, 2021 ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha hahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA ha ha. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
Boomdav Posted September 12, 2021 And i already have a feeling that this thread will end up in a bad way. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post
Rudolph Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Boomdav said: And i already have a feeling that this thread will end up in a bad way. Well, it was going fine until @famicommander showed up. Given their last comment, I take it that they are not actually interested in having a good-faith conversation and I will simply ignore them from now on. Edited September 12, 2021 by Rudolph 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
[McD] James Posted September 12, 2021 (edited) Both of you are spouting bad takes, and you both need to settle the fuck down. Edited September 12, 2021 by [McD]James 2 Quote Share this post Link to post
Walter confetti Posted September 12, 2021 On 9/10/2021 at 5:55 PM, DavetheDoomguy said: My idea is that it's been a while since the events in Revolution, and this new group seen in the movie found a way to bring Neo back into the real world again. But in order to do that, they have to break the truce with the machines and access whatever tech is needed to revive them. The time skip would explain why the team is made up of new people, and possibly why Neo and Trinity look different. The Matrix is meant to be a simulation of the world in 1999, so it's reasonable to assume aging exists there. We see that the normal Agents are there, possibly hinting at the machines/Matrix trying to stop whatever it is they're doing. As for the overall goal of the movie, I think Neo being resurrected is to help Zion free the rest of humanity and destroy the machines once and for all. Is a interesting theory... but why they have to ressurect Neo again from the dead? Didn't another hero or elect comes out, as the architect said in the end of matrix reloaded, "there was more than one of you (elects) and all they failed(i think it said something like that)", is Neo the only anomaly present in the program so strong to destroy it? And why the matrix let him live in a way or the other (kinda recall that the machines take away Neo body with them iirc) maybe his own body, maybe like in Neuromancer that it's a digitilized version of his conscience? Thinking about it, the new Trinity look kinda resembles the female main character (i don't remember her name now, that chick with cybernetic killer nails and enchanted visor googles instead of her eyes) of that novel... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post
Dweller Dark Posted September 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Walter confetti said: Is a interesting theory... but why they have to ressurect Neo again from the dead? Didn't another hero or elect comes out, as the architect said in the end of matrix reloaded, "there was more than one of you (elects) and all they failed(i think it said something like that)", is Neo the only anomaly present in the program so strong to destroy it? And why the matrix let him live in a way or the other (kinda recall that the machines take away Neo body with them iirc) maybe his own body, maybe like in Neuromancer that it's a digitilized version of his conscience? Thinking about it, the new Trinity look kinda resembles the female main character (i don't remember her name now, that chick with cybernetic killer nails and enchanted visor googles instead of her eyes) of that novel... Well, I'm not sure why they'd have to resurrect him, but we know he's got powers outside of the Matrix, which may have something to do with it. And the events of Reloaded hint at Neo being unlike other elects, doing things that defy the precedence set by those before him (he saved both Zion and Trinity, as an example, where most chose Zion), so he's likely different from the other "anomalies" as the Architect puts it. But I would assume, that since his consciousness was in the Matrix and absorbed by Smith, he could still exist in the Matrix separate from his body. It's a bit hard to explain how everything makes sense, considering how the Matrix movies are, and the current lack of information on Resurrection's plot. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post
magicsofa Posted September 12, 2021 As a queer person I don't see a significant relationship between the contents of the movies and the gender or "leftness" of the creators. As in, I wouldn't mark it as a particularly radical-left series. I think the LGBT community was hyped about having high-profile people openly join their ranks, but the movies themselves are 99% about "how crazy would it be if we were in a computer." You want radical left, go watch the remake of She-Ra. I actually enjoyed the third movie more than the second. The first is pretty much my favorite movie of all time, but unlike Tarantino I don't let the quirks of the sequels ruin my appreciation for the series as a whole. This could be good if it doesn't take itself too seriously... 2 Quote Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.