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

Younger generations take on the Matrix Trilogy has baffled me.

posted 10 years ago by alvaroperez3050
58 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] ben-ten 9 years ago

I read this and then re-watched the whole trilogy, which I didn't touch for like 10 years or so. I almost forgot what it was about except for cool fighting scenes, FX and overall reality bending something... Man, this is one of the best movies sagas ever. The Matrix - 11/10, Reloaded - 9/10 and Revolutions - 8/10.

[–] bsharporflat 9 years ago

Man, this is one of the best movies sagas ever. The Matrix - 11/10, Reloaded - 9/10 and Revolutions - 8/10.

There ya go, Ben-ten. That's the problem really. The biggest problem of the two follow-up movies is that they didn't match the beginning-to-end brilliance of the first movie.

But very few movies do.

So if you factor that in, the trilogy, as a whole, is still among the best SF movie series. Which series is better? Star Wars? Star Trek? Planet of the Apes? All those have plenty of boring, filler scenes, just like the Matrix series.

[–] ben-ten 9 years ago

All those have plenty of boring, filler scenes, just like the Matrix series.

I disagree about some movie sagas. Theatrical LOTR is pretty much perfect. Indiana Jones trilogy is also pretty much perfect. Star Wars OT has pretty tight screenplay.

Matrix sequels slipped where they wanted to present certain things as something more complicated than they actually were. Original movie was pretty much straightforward and didn't have those extensive talks like "do you really know what you know?", "you must know what you know", "I believe what I believe", "choice to have a choice". Cryptic messages and names, and so on. Matrix sequels can be easily fixed. They really shine when they don't try to build suspense out of nothing and don't re-use same tricks over and over again.

[–] bsharporflat 9 years ago

Theatrical LOTR is pretty much perfect.

Perhaps. But that is probably an unfair comparison. LOTR was taken straight from a trilogy of books which had taken the author some 10-15 years to complete. The Wachowskis had to come up with sequels to The Matrix themselves and within a year or two.

Indiana Jones trilogy is also pretty much perfect.

Ugh. Strongly disagree. The first one was an all-time classic. But the Temple of Doom? Schlock-fest with a screaming blonde and an insufferably cute Asian kid and too many bowls of eyeballs. The further sequels, well...they are okay. But if either had been the first movie, I don't think any sequels would have been made.

Star Wars OT has pretty tight screenplay.

Well, somewhat disagree. The first Star Wars was good, for its time. Empire Strikes Back is probably the best one of all. The others had their moments. But show me an Ewok or a Trading Federation conference or a love scene between Annakin and Padme and you'll see my finger on the FF button.

Original movie was pretty much straightforward

I'm not so sure it was. The key scene is when the Oracle is first talking to Neo. She tells him not to worry about the vase, which makes him break the vase. Later she mocks Neo for his belief that he is in control of his own destiny.

If Neo is not in control of his own destiny, who is? The vase tells us, even though the superficial movie plot does not.

This is what is expanded and elaborated upon in the next two Matrix movies. That we are NOT in control of our own destiny. That higher powers control us in ways we don't even realize or understand.

Most people do not understand this message. But they do intuitively understand that Neo isn't the all-powerful superhero we'd hoped he would be. Neo is revealed as just a tool being used, and that's why the sequel movies are not popular. They portray human beings as children who are used and then tossed aside and always getting their hands slapped for messing with things which are beyond them.

At the end of The Matrix, Neo is able to completely dominate and control the previously invincible agents. Everybody likes that.

But nobody likes to be told they are a helpless, immature child (in comparison to machine intelligence). So naturally the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions movies are not going to be so popular. But I appreciate the hidden message of these movies and the way it was imbedded within the story (even if I don't necessarily agree with it)

[–] ben-ten 9 years ago

Perhaps. But that is probably an unfair comparison. LOTR was taken straight from a trilogy of books which had taken the author some 10-15 years to complete. The Wachowskis had to come up with sequels to The Matrix themselves and within a year or two.

Not exactly. Wachowskis created the whole story initially, but didn't hope to make three movies out of it. Their initial idea was (I don't remember where I heard or read that) pretty similar to the finished trilogy, only it was way more obvious, that machines created two layers of Matrix, to simulate rebels and freedom. Producers were against it, so they had to make it way more subtle and cryptic. Rewriting sequels did some damage to storytelling.

Ugh. Strongly disagree.

I didn't say anything about Crystal Skull, which was an abomination. But the original trilogy is almost perfect. Great writing, pacing, humour (Temple of Doom is the most funny). Dislike it all you want, but it's not fair judgement. I rarely see a good comedy adventure, but Indina Jones trilogy from 80s is the best example.

Well, somewhat disagree. The first Star Wars was good, for its time. Empire Strikes Back is probably the best one of all. The others had their moments. But show me an Ewok or a Trading Federation conference or a love scene between Annakin and Padme and you'll see my finger on the FF button.

I specifically wrote OT. Which means Original Trilogy. There's no Padme or Anakin. Star Wars 1 was a revolution. ESB is one of the best sequels in history of cinema and ROTJ, while having some issues, is still an amazing movie, which has plenty of iconic moments.

[–] whatisthisidonteven2017 9 years ago

Their initial idea was (I don't remember where I heard or read that) pretty similar to the finished trilogy, only it was way more obvious, that machines created two layers of Matrix, to simulate rebels and freedom. Producers were against it, so they had to make it way more subtle and cryptic. Rewriting sequels did some damage to storytelling.

Don't believe everything you read. :P I've read everything there is to read regarding the production of The Matrix movies from actual sources instead of hearsay and it basically boils down to:

a) they had enough material thought out to support more than one movie.
b) they wanted to make a trilogy out of it but they were told "let's worry about part 1 for now".
c) when asked how the story can continue they said we could make 2 prequels, 2 sequels, or a 1 prequel and 1 a sequel.
d) they had the backstory of the Machine vs Human war already thought out from the beginning and they decided to tell it as a 4 part webcomic, but after the release of part 1, the other 3 parts were never released, instead the story was told in anime form in The Animatrix.

That's all there is to it. :)

[–] ComicNerd 9 years ago

I find it hard to believe that the Matrix Sequels were planned out at all. The 1st movie is pretty self contained, aside from Zion actually being revealed.

At the very least there isn't enough material to fill out 2 movies. Both sequels are padded out with endless action scenes, ie the highway chase and the Zion gun shoot out. Everything about Reloaded is about padding the runtime because there just wasn't enough story to fill out the movie.

The entire movie's plot is to rescue a guy with a key. Revolutions barely picks up any threads form Reloaded. Like the 2 Pirates sequels the lack of planning and story is obvious.

[–] bsharporflat 9 years ago

I find it hard to believe that the Matrix Sequels were planned out at all. The 1st movie is pretty self contained, aside from Zion actually being revealed.

Yes, there is the unseen Zion which is mentioned.

There is also the extremely developed sub-plot about how Agent Smith hates The Matrix and wants to be free. He goes on and on about that in his rant to Morpheus. Hard to believe that was just meant to dead end into nothing.

There are also some mysteries involving The Oracle. Why does she make Neo break the vase and later mock him for believing in free will and self-determination? is that how you treat a hero? By jerking him around like that? Perhaps he isn't quite what he seems....

That manipulation by The Oracle is setting up the next two movies also, in which it is revealed that there are cycles and that Zion, Neo, Agent Smith and The Oracle (and, of course The Architect) represent a previously unrevealed deeper level of control.

[–] kpocala 8 years ago

Actually, "LOTR" took almost forty years to complete. As to This trilogy: Some very cool ideas, the movie/s could have been great, but the writers ran out of "intellect". And here is my proof of concept: 1) Over-long, and too many fight scenes which only rarely actually "accomplished" anything. The idea that what happens in the "matrix" would kill someone "plugged in" is ludicrous. The silly "rave scene", not really using Agent Smith to his character's full "potential". And after awhile, you can see that the actors can't really "sell the story" any longer. Like trying to turn cream of wheat into a prime rib. I could keep going, but it would get as tedious as many of the series scenes. Were there some really great ideas, and philosophies that were used as a "Base"? Absolutely. But, if I'm wrong about the writer's "lack of intellect", then surely they wrote to turn a great single movie into one very good one, one "6" movie, and one terrible "closer". And "Zion" was really nothing more than a Cash Cow for the "Brothers"........ I didn't watch the movies until maybe five years after they came out. I thought I'd give them another try this week. But, other than the opening movie, most of 'two and three' is as satisfying as watching someone else play a first-person shooter. I do wonder what a director such as Guillermo Del Toro could have done with the franchise.....

[–] depastino 7 years ago

Some very cool ideas, the movie/s could have been great, but the writers ran out of "intellect". And here is my proof of concept: 1) Over-long, and too many fight scenes which only rarely actually "accomplished" anything.

What is a fight supposed to "accomplish"? Perhaps you could cite examples of fights you considered "pointless"?

The idea that what happens in the "matrix" would kill someone "plugged in" is ludicrous.

If you were dealing with regular humans, maybe so.

But the Redpills are cyborgs. This provides a means to ensure that fatal damage absorbed inside the Matrix actually kills the connected human.

They're not wearing VR headsets. There is a probe plugged directly into their skull. Consider the kind of harm that could be done to a brain connected in such a way. My assumption has always been that plugged-in humans are wired with a "kill" switch to make certain that death in the Matrix is an unbreakable rule.

The silly "rave scene"

Annoying and boring, but the WB put it in for a reason.

not really using Agent Smith to his character's full "potential"

This is a subjective complaint.

after awhile, you can see that the actors can't really "sell the story" any longer

Not sure what you're getting at here.

[–] werechicken 9 years ago

Interesting thread.



[–] lilwith 9 years ago

I was around for that hype. I was starting middle school when II came out and the 1st was so amazing I saw it twice in theaters. (And I give it a solid 9 out of 10 stars)

Overall... I just felt like the magic was lost. The action scenes were anti-climactic even though I loved the characters and the philosophy. The 3rd was just boring... and gets even more boring with every view. (That's my opinion and mine alone.)

[–] bryan_ldfrd 8 years ago

I've grown to enjoy this trilogy very much over the years. What blows my mind is how well the digital effects hold up. I'm a CGI grouch and frequently find myself getting frustrated with noticeable effects. These really stand the test of time. Maybe it's because they were literally creating the software for the movies or because they weren't quite as rushed into a finished project (as most Hollywood tent-pole projects are these days). When people complain about the second and third installments I just remind myself of how strongly people felt of the first film and accept their obstinance. Also, watch the commentaries with Cornel West. That dude sees things in these movies that I would've never opened my mind to. And yeah, I'm older and saw the first film as a Junior in April of 99'. My head exploded. Although, I always enjoyed how the second and third parts didn't spoon feed you the trippy stuff as much as the first did.

[–] razlakh 8 years ago

CGI is okay for everything except the fights like Burly Brawl or end fight which just look stupid. The ones where they blended in life action were good, and props to the actors for doing most of their own stunts. You only really notice Neo's stunt double when he's being thrown at a wall.

[–] bryan_ldfrd 8 years ago

You're right. The completely CGI Neo is a bit problematic. My suspension of disbelief is balanced out by the fact that it takes place in a computer generated reality. I suppose I should say it isn't completely distracting for me. It's not as awful as, for instance, the CHI Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.

[–] Ithilfaen 8 years ago

Also, kids get dumber every year and the studios now take the dumbasses for all they're worth. When you see all the crappy movies that make billions now, there's only one explanation for it. We are in the Matrix and the younger ones just accept the control way more easily than we used to.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] kpocala 8 years ago

You pretty well make a great case. Uh, uh, what was I writing about?

[–] gss2 8 years ago

I guess you could say that tastes have changed over the years. I still like the first Matrix film for its narrative, with reality being redefined over the course of the film as the plot advances. It is better as a standalone film.

The Animatrix series of short films is a lot of fun. They are very visually interesting. These have aged the best of all the films, ironically.

The second film is ok. It has a weird "green" look to it, and some of the special effects haven't aged well. The creators of the film were tryin to do things that the computer technology of the day couldn't do, and parts are very obviously animate. However, some of the fight scenes are above average. The Mansion fight scenes are awesome, as are all of the fight scenes with the ghost twins. The writers were very creative with regard to the Twins' execution.

The third film is all spectacle and no substance. It is just one big climax. The scenes with the train conductor and the leather (latex?) bar are badly conceived and badly acted. The ending scenes are very anti-climactic.

[–] info-655-196140 8 years ago

The effects in The Matrix were groundbreaking, but that's not what made the movie incredible for me, it was all about the intriguing story, the sequels are in my opinion as good as garbage.

And Avengers, LOTR, Transformers are all trash.

[–] Mossap 8 years ago

My only comment is for #1. I think the action in the Matrix is still far beyond anything in any of the new blockbusters or comic book movies. The fighting and choreography is incredible. Maybe bullet time isn't mindblowing, but it's still cool and the rest of the action is incredible.

[–] kpocala 8 years ago

One legacy that the "Matrix" left us with is something I've come to despise (and no, they start "IT"), and that's the hyper-athleticism of characters in movies these days. I mean, a little is pretty fun. After a while it comes tedious, losing what should make it cool. Once characters show that this "skill-set" is the norm in their World, what good is it? Just time-filler, and money that was spent which SHOULD have been spent on, you know, professional screenwriters and actors (especially needed are pro "character actors").