MovieChat Forums > The Matrix RevolutionsĀ (2003) Discussion > Younger generations take on the Matrix T...

Younger generations take on the Matrix Trilogy has baffled me.


I've noticed an amazing phenomenon in recent years. And in a nutshell it's this:
People who have just recently seen the Matrix 1,2 and 3 for the first time (ex: 2010-2014), or people who were born after 1999, adore the Matrix Trilogy. And this blew my mind. I realized that these are the reasons:

1. The Matrix 1 is not mind blowing anymore:
In 1999, The Matrix was pretty much incredible. Now? After the Avengers, LOTR, Transformers...bullet time is pretty "meh" at best for young people/new viewers. So they didn't have ridiculous expectations set up for the sequels.

2. The Trailers are not there to desensitize the audience:
"The moment" came when watching the Matrix Trilogy with my ex-girlfriend. And I swear to God, she was floored more by the sequels than the original. When Neo fought the 100 Smiths, she said "They filmed this. Someone actually made this. This is unbelievable. How?". You see, she didn't have the Reloaded/Revolutions trailer ruining and building up the spectacles that were about to be seen in Reloaded/Revolutions. Everything was as fresh as when we first saw the Matrix 1 in 1999.

3. No time between the films.
a) New audiences will usually watch all 3 films within a few days of each other. There's no months (or years) of pondering and building up ideas.
b) Waiting 6 months for Revolutions, is the same as waiting 6 months for the final hour of the "Dark Knight". Imagine that for a second. Because that's all Revolutions is: "the ending to Reloaded". Imagine if the final hour of the Dark Knight was considered its own film. Audiences would have flipped: "That's it? The Joker and Batman have a 3 minute fight...and it's over?"

4. The Trailers didn't spoil the surprises.
When people went to see Revolutions in 2003, every single person on earth knew that it would end with Neo vs. Smith in the rain. However, watching them the way they were meant to be seen (without spoilers), changed my entire perspective. In fact, the people I've shown the trilogy to had absolutely no idea how it would end. Only when the Oracle mentions that "Neo or Smith would settle the war" is the first time that the idea of "some confrontation" comes about. Seeing 4-5 jaws collectively drop the second Neo goes in for the final battle is very satisfying.

5. Time changes everything:
I'm sure in the mid 80s, "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" was a huge disappointment. But now? I think most people will agree: "Well, it's not as good as 1 or 2, but it has it's moments. And I'm glad it was made. It's still really fun." Movies are seen very differently years after they were made. I know friends who told me Blade Runner got 1/10 reviews at the time. So did other classics that were ahead of their time. And the Matrix sequels are no exception. And I'm noticing all over that perceptions are changing.

6. Hype destroys everything:
I once told a college student that "Mad Max: The Road Warrior" was a masterpiece that he had to see. He gave it a 2/10 rating. "Boring/predictable/stupid" was his review. That's when it hit me. You can't ever go into a movie expecting it to blow you away. It's almost as unfair as going into a blind date expecting the same thing. Again, new viewers or younger ones never had to experience that insane hype.


I can finally "get" why these movies are being seen positively after years of bashing. They're legitimate 8/10 films (together as a 2 part narrative), that were treated as if they were "Highlander 2 bad". And that, my friends, is an unforgivable crime in cinema.

reply

I have indeed noticed new viewers are more likely to see the sequels as "well they are not as good, but they are ok" than "OMG teh matriks is ru1ned forevah nao!!!1111"

reply

I liked all of the Matrix films. Yes the 1st was my favorite and the other 2 films were important to me for the philosophical point of view. The visuals in what came after the first was good but didn't have the heart of the first. I guess that you cannot pretend to have heart. You either do or do not.

I was most interested in the message of the films so that's why they were entertaining for me. I like films that are inline with my own gestalt of the world. This also explains my admiration for Star Trek.

I was born in 1970 and before the Matrix, I had never seen anything like it. I look forward to movies like this. There will be more even if I am the one to bring them to fruition. There will be more.

My YouTube Show: https://www.youtube.com/user/demodular

reply

100% absolutely agree with OP. About a year ago, I was sitting in film class (Film 101). Our professor (who's very respected in our Uni) started a conversation about narrative threads. Somehow it turned into "bad sequels". He mentioned the obvious ones off the top of his head. When he mentioned the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, people started to put their hands up: "Are you being serious sir?". Then some (half-joking) boos from more and more people. Granted, we're all in our early 20s (most of us). So the Matrix came out when we were like 6 lol. But it's true, we didn't have the same "That was the greatest thing ever created. The sequels will surely change the universe" feeling that many adults had in 1999 with the first Matrix.

Our prof was really amused and surprised. He asked "How many people think they're good films?". I think 95% of people put their hands up. Sure, they may not be as "perfect" as the first film was. But people my age really dig them. After a never ending barrage of "trilogies" in the 2000s, the Matrix Trilogy really stands out for being "different". The sequels are very dark, but very heartfelt and honest. They sacrifice those "high-five, heroes laugh into sun set" moments for some brilliant ideas and a very purposeful message by their creators. I love them.

reply

last message lol. When I hear older people talk about why they hated the sequels, it always has to do with their expectations being dashed. But, when you watch them back to back...you really have no time to make expectations. You just wonder: "Cool...what's next? Wow. That's awesome." And when Reloaded ends, you're not "pissed off", because the next DVD is right beside you lol. None of that "6 months of waiting" like OP mentioned. No wonder people were so pissed back then.

reply

One of the most common complaints I read about Revolutions back in the day was "I spent 6 months debating what happened in the end of Reloaded and came up with all sorts of theories about Neo being a program, Zion being another Matrix, the Machines actually being the only humans, Persephone being the Mother of the Matrix, the Kid being the true One and you tell me "the power of the One reaches all the way to the Source" is all there is to it?! WTF?!"

Hence the common criticism of Revolutions being a film without ideas when it has at least as many as Reloaded.

reply

I just rewatched the whole trilogy and I can sum up the core of what I disliked about it simply: Zion is boring. I mean, there are other flaws -- Reloaded has too much exposition, Trinity takes forever to die in Revolutions -- but these are minor issues.

What makes these movies stylish, exciting and action-filled is when the characters go into the matrix. You've got cool kung fu, incredible stunts, fashionable clothes, etc. When they're out of the matrix, everything is boring: the environment is gray and brown, they all wear rags, the action isn't stylish, etc.

Even the villain sucks more in Zion. In the matrix, it's all about the confrontation with the agents and Smith in particular. Smith has a personality, his own goals and his own motivations, making him an interesting antagonist. In Zion, the villains are a bunch of squid-robots, with no personality, goal or motivation beyond "kill everyone". Boring.

In the first movie, most of it takes place inside the matrix. In the second movie, it's half and half. In the third, most of it is set inside Zion. And indeed, each sequel becomes progressively worse. The directors should have either made Zion more interesting or put less emphasis on it, IMHO.

reply

I haven't seen Revolutions, but I walked out of Reloaded after 20-30 min. because it was so cheesy.

I don't think I had these huge expectations, either. I loved the original film, but it seemed to have clearly been made as a standalone story. At the end, Neo crashes the system, everyone is free, the end.

So, much like a successful TV show that has run out of plot but still has good ratings, it sounds like they cooked up a bunch of overcomplicated gobbledygook nonsense to extend things out and grab some cash. And it worked.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

At the end, Neo crashes the system, everyone is free, the end.


That's not what happened in the end though. What Neo crashes is the trace of his call while declaring it's up to the Machines how they want this to play out.

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.


For the record had Neo crashed the Matrix he would have committed mass human genocide since Morpheus explained to him that most people above a certain age, heavily implied to be kids/teens if one goes by the "potentials" in the Oracle's apartment and the consensus being that most people lose their rebellious nature once in their early/mid 20s, cannot wake up from the Matrix without going crazy/having a heart attack/and so on. (Reloaded implies the percentage of humans that would want to wake up in the real world is even lower - ~1% of humans. But for the purpose of this post let's examine the first movie as standalone.) Billions of people would die if Neo did that. Would it be worth it? Up to you.

As Neo said "I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end."

reply

That's not what happened in the end though. What Neo crashes is the trace of his call...


*cough* RETCON *cough*

Oh, sorry, must have something stuck in my throat. šŸ˜‰

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

I haven't seen Revolutions, but I walked out of Reloaded after 20-30 min. because it was so cheesy.


No. If you read this thread you will realize you walked out because you are too damn old to get it.

reply

I was still in my twenties at that time. If that's "too damn old to get it", then it sounds to me like we're entering Justin Bieber or Disney Channel territory, and I'm fine with being too old for little kid or teenybopper nonsense.

Strange though for a movie franchise to start out appealing to adults and then become a kiddie thing with the sequel. Kind of the opposite of, say, the Harry Potter franchise, that matured as its fans did.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

Yeah, wtf were they thinking with Jar Jar Binks? Oh wait.

The sequels are no more kid friendly than the original film.

reply

Yeah, wtf were they thinking with Jar Jar Binks? Oh wait.


Star Wars would be an exception, except for Empire Strikes Back which was more mature than the original. However, the Star Wars franchise was always oriented towards kids in general, which I don't think is true of the first Matrix movie.

The sequels are no more kid friendly than the original film.


So you disagree with the premise of the thread, then?

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

Nowhere does the OP talk about "kids".

1999's 17 year olds are 32 today. It's not a film that came 5 years ago and new viewers of it would be like 12.

reply

17 year olds are not kids now? I hear people say "high school kids", not "high school men and women". Even in college, it's "college kids".

In any event, what are you trying to say? It's not at all clear.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

So by that definition the first movie was a kiddie movie as well. Since it was rated R which means 17 year old kids can see it.

What I am saying:

- Regarding the OP I agree that in my experience new viewers are less critical of the sequels. For various reasons, such as not being their #1 most anticipated film.

- Regarding your post about the sequels appealing more to "kiddies", I disagree. I do not think the sequels have elements that appeal more to kids compared to the first movie, or that the first movie has elements that appeal more to adults compared to the sequels.

reply

So for you (and maybe for the OP, as you note) it's about people coming to them fresh. So you're not signing on to the "you're too damn old to get it" theory, then?

I had forgotten BTW that these films were rated R. No way would a studio allow that today.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

I will speak for myself :P yes that's what I mean.

reply

Ah, yes, too be called "old" because I was out of high school. Yes, those were the days. Is calling someone "old" an "insult" of some kind? BTW, you should have written 'too damnED old to get it'. And don't end a sentence with a preposition. Tsk, tsk.....

reply

Take some "hallucinogen, watch a nice fish-tank, and write an essay on the "depth" of character, cool character, and some great, great CGI work, even better than "Avatar". Twenty years, "Maybe" "you'll" get it.......

reply

You can't judge a film you've never seen. You can't judge a film on 20-30 minutes either.

Anything you said after "I walked out... " is irrelevant.

reply

Nonsense. Unless there is some reveal later that "we were all acting ridiculous in the cringeworthy party and sex scenes because" and then there's some plausible "twisty" explanation, there is nothing that could occur afterward that would change the fact that the movie starts out with a super cheesy dance party and sex scene. (And I've read enough synopses to know there is in fact no such explanation.) You could splice in the greatest film of all time from that point on, and it would still not be a good movie, because that beginning was so laughably bad.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

Great post. I agree with a lot of things you said about what hype, expectations and waiting can do to our perception of a movie. I still greatly dislike Reloaded and Revolutions, but I liked your ideas, and to be fair, I haven't seen them since they first came out.

reply

all three movies are *beep*

and the younger generation is renowned for their awfully lame taste in everything

reply

Interesting premise, but for me personally...

The Matrix was an amazing movie full of symbolism and mystic allegory, and was really the first fresh idea delivered by Hollywood in a good long time. Add in the groundbreaking at-the-time special effects and unbelievably choreographed fight scenes, and you have one of the Top 50 movies of all time.

But you'll have to add me to that camp that Reloaded/Revolutions were just not very satisfying...not terrible, not great, watchable, but hardly in the neighborhood of the original.

And I was not unduly influenced by any "hype" or the trailers...if anything, the hype for me was self-inflicted, because I hoped that the sequels would just do the original justice.

They were overly-melodramatic, almost seemed soap opera-esque, and some of the most serious moments and dramatic speeches almost seem comical in retrospect.

And probably most tedious for me in the sequels: after battling the unbeatable agents again and again and again in the original, and then finally displaying that he was indeed The One in defeating Agent Smith at the end...to have Neo then continually fighting the agents repeatedly in both sequels, just seemed repetitive and tired.




Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

The Matrix was an amazing movie full of symbolism and mystic allegory,


Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions continued the symbolism and mystic allegory but it wasn't enough for you. You also needed a superficial story as new and fresh as the first Matrix and that simply wasn't ever going to happen.

But you'll have to add me to that camp that Reloaded/Revolutions were just not very satisfying...not terrible, not great, watchable


I find the way to watch them is to fast-forward through the trite, repetitive hackneyed, melodramatic parts and get to the good stuff.

And probably most tedious for me in the sequels: after battling the unbeatable agents again and again and again in the original, and then finally displaying that he was indeed The One in defeating Agent Smith at the end...to have Neo then continually fighting the agents repeatedly in both sequels, just seemed repetitive and tired.


Perhaps, but there was a symbolic point to each battle. Agent Smith was cast as Neo's opposite. Neo is "The One". Can you see how Smith's viral copying ability is a way of making him the opposite of "The One"?

Consider the final battle. In all previous battles with agents, Neo juggled between two choices- run or fight. It was always one or the other, or some combination. But in the final battle, a third option was exercised: voluntary self-sacrifice (an obvious echo of you-know-who). Only through this act was Neo (and the Oracle guiding him) able to achieve their final victory- not only over Agent Smith but also the machine overlords controlling The Matrix itself.

reply

You make fine points, particularly about the final final battle.

However, you also kinda validated my point about the sequels, when you say:

"I find the way to watch them is to fast-forward through the trite, repetitive hackneyed, melodramatic parts and get to the good stuff."


The fact that there are so many of these parts in the sequels, is particularly why I thought they were OK, not great....unlike the original, which I can still pretty much watch end-to-end, even though the ending is now well-known to me.



Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Agreed. I think one sequel to The Matrix would have sufficed.

Without the filler of Reloaded and especially Revolutions, perhaps the sequel could have been as good as the original Matrix movie.

reply

"I find the way to watch them is to fast-forward through the trite, repetitive hackneyed, melodramatic parts and get to the good stuff. "

LOL.

There you have it, folks. The OP's long-winded list failed to capture the true heart of the issue. Here's how it works:

The younger generation are notorious for their short attention spans compared even to the previous one. For them, it's totally reasonable to a consider a movie "good" because it had good scenes. If the rest are crap, that's OK because you skip them anyway.

Older folks are inclined to treat a movie as a coherent work of art. We'll sit through the bad scenes, and if there are enough of them we'll decide the movie as a whole was crap, regardless of how good the best scene or two were.

See, The Matrix was entirely good, from start to finish. But in the subsequent films we were treated to such god-awful scenes as the cave rave and Neo touching Trinity's heart. No such movie can survive with a "good" rating for folks who consider it as a whole.

reply

"Symbolism"? "Symbolism" can only be appreciated by people who, you know, actually have "critical thinking" skills. So these movies are lost on younger audiences. As proof, notice that almost all threads start out talking about "special effects". Viewers given LSD, and instructed to just watch a nice fish-tank would have their minds blown, and come away talking about "special effects".

reply

I was around when this series was new, and I didn't think it was anything special even then. It's just a poorly done allegory of the cave with leather fetishists. What's the big deal?

Hayao Miyazaki is the most overrated director of all time. Deal with it!

reply