Matrix: Resurrections

[D34DL1N3R]

?
As much as I hate explaining jokes then fairly standard humour device, along with contriving something to have in name only at the end (gino, godzilla in name only, if we are continuing with films that fans of the franchise pretend don't exist. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InNameOnly ), is to deny its existence. You may also see it with the phrase "what matrix sequels" ( "what matrix sequels" -resurrections -"matrix 4" being a choice search string if you want that), also xkcd https://xkcd.com/566/ . "there are only 3 indiana jones" would be another, earlier on "there are only two Godfathers", "only one robocop".
Don't think I have ever seen it as an attack on anybody or any kind of harsh.

That's all a longshot from how your other post was worded, and you know it. But back to the entire "joke", it would make sense if it were a Halloween type of thing like with the 2018 movie and how H2-Ressurection never took place. But that's not what's going on. This new Matrix isn't being touted as a direct sequel to the first and that the other sequels never took place. The entire "joke" isn't even a good joke in most cases. It's a really poor one that doesn't even make sense in the context of most cases it's used in.

 

[godreborn]

looks good to me. I really liked the playing of "white rabbit" during the trailer, good song.

 

[MetoMeto]

Opening weekend, original release, 22 years ago.

Why do you think it wasnt a masterpiece?

 

[FAST6191]

That's all a longshot from how your other post was worded, and you know it. But back to the entire "joke", it would make sense if it were a Halloween type of thing like with the 2018 movie and how H2-Ressurection never took place. But that's not what's going on. This new Matrix isn't being touted as a direct sequel to the first and that the other sequels never took place. The entire "joke" isn't even a good joke in most cases. It's a really poor one that doesn't even make sense in the context of most cases it's used in.

I am quite content with the original wording and consider it playful and humorous, as was the thing that triggered this little aside. If anybody is going out of their way to misconstrue things as some flavour of offensive or at least unpleasant then that falls to you.
On making sense then I would maintain it is a fairly standard response to sequels, adaptations, continuations, asides, spinoff games and whatever else that people don't like and choose to ignore. What you describe sounds more like some kind of official (by the owners the IP or its creators) canonical reworking, which is also a thing when writers paint themselves into a corner but different as theoretically they have a real say* where the fan stuff is largely just that**.

*which would probably lead us into the whole trans thing mentioned earlier as there was some debate as to whether the wachowskis were talking out of their arses when only a little while back they claimed it featured transexual themes (and from where I sit such claims were bloody thin at best). However authorial intent vs reader interpretation is probably a subject of a different thread.

**adaptations feeding back into the original work has happened, and with stuff in the public domain then that can also supplant the original for what most think of when something is mentioned. The English language tends to be about a collective agreement on the meaning of words (descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive for which you probably want to look at something like French) and by extension I guess a fan theory could become so accepted as to supplant the original, don't think I have ever seen it though and even without the threat of copyright issues ( https://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html covers a few, though generally see fan works agreements for even the more permissive things) I don't imagine I will.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I am quite content with the original wording and consider it playful and humorous, as was the thing that triggered this little aside. If anybody is going out of their way to misconstrue things as some flavour of offensive or at least unpleasant then that falls to you.
On making sense then I would maintain it is a fairly standard response to sequels, adaptations, continuations, asides, spinoff games and whatever else that people don't like and choose to ignore. What you describe sounds more like some kind of official (by the owners the IP or its creators) canonical reworking, which is also a thing when writers paint themselves into a corner but different as theoretically they have a real say* where the fan stuff is largely just that**.

*which would probably lead us into the whole trans thing mentioned earlier as there was some debate as to whether the wachowskis were talking out of their arses when only a little while back they claimed it featured transexual themes (and from where I sit such claims were bloody thin at best). However authorial intent vs reader interpretation is probably a subject of a different thread.

**adaptations feeding back into the original work has happened, and with stuff in the public domain then that can also supplant the original for what most think of when something is mentioned. The English language tends to be about a collective agreement on the meaning of words (descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive for which you probably want to look at something like French) and by extension I guess a fan theory could become so accepted as to supplant the original, don't think I have ever seen it though and even without the threat of copyright issues ( https://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html covers a few, though generally see fan works agreements for even the more permissive things) I don't imagine I will.

tl;dr Shrug.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

I hate to nitpick (not true actually, I love to nitpick), but pretending a sequel doesn't exist is called "fanon discontinuity"
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity
"In name only" is a different trope.

goodbbye to my next 3 hours

 

[duwen]

Why do you think it wasnt a masterpiece?

Like I said, I don't dislike it. Taken for what it is it's an entertaining, well made, enjoyable HOLLYWOOD sci-fi film... but there are many more Hollywood sci-fi films that ARE masterpieces, that truly were groundbreaking, that make The Matrix look like a B movie by comparison. The only way it does compare to some of the greats is in how influential it was.

To anyone that hadn't read any PK Dick, Ellison, etc, or watched any Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc, the story may have seemed highly original, when it was just a bunch of long existing tropes repackaged for mass appeal.
And visually it may have appeared ground breaking to anyone unfamiliar with 80's and early 90's "heroic bloodshed" Hong Kong films from the likes of Ringo Lam and John Woo, that took a near fetishistic approach to gun-play, and martial arts wirework in masterpieces like Tsui Harks "Zu"... again repackaged via some clever retooling of existing techniques.
... but to me, at the time of it's release, it was nothing new, so it's very hard for me to even consider it a groundbreaking masterpiece when (viewed through my frame of reference) it's clearly not deserving of either tag.

 

[MetoMeto]

Like I said, I don't dislike it. Taken for what it is it's an entertaining, well made, enjoyable HOLLYWOOD sci-fi film... but there are many more Hollywood sci-fi films that ARE masterpieces, that truly were groundbreaking, that make The Matrix look like a B movie by comparison. The only way it does compare to some of the greats is in how influential it was.

To anyone that hadn't read any PK Dick, Ellison, etc, or watched any Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc, the story may have seemed highly original, when it was just a bunch of long existing tropes repackaged for mass appeal.
And visually it may have appeared ground breaking to anyone unfamiliar with 80's and early 90's "heroic bloodshed" Hong Kong films from the likes of Ringo Lam and John Woo, that took a near fetishistic approach to gun-play, and martial arts wirework in masterpieces like Tsui Harks "Zu"... again repackaged via some clever retooling of existing techniques.
... but to me, at the time of it's release, it was nothing new, so it's very hard for me to even consider it a groundbreaking masterpiece when (viewed through my frame of reference) it's clearly not deserving of either tag.

I see...

Yeah, it was really influential.

 

[spotanjo3]

I dont know its good. I dont liked three Matrix at all because Neo can't use high kick in first movie which I saw and laughed. And many of them are not great in kung fu fighters like I see other movie in Japan and China which had very experts kung fu in acrobatics and flexible high kick.

I will watch this one but I am not going to like it.

 

[duwen]

I rewatched the trailer and realised it's basically "Hook" - Grown up Peter Pan (Robin Williams) has forgotten he was Peter Pan but gets drawn back to Neverland to face his destiny.

 

[wurstpistole]

The Matrix was a somewhat popular 1999 sci-fi action movie

Now that's an understatement

 

[subcon959]

Hugo Weaving was my favourite part of the original movies so I'm very disappointed they didn't re-schedule to fit him in. Surely he was just as big a part as Keanu himself?

 

[MetoMeto]

Like I said, I don't dislike it. Taken for what it is it's an entertaining, well made, enjoyable HOLLYWOOD sci-fi film... but there are many more Hollywood sci-fi films that ARE masterpieces, that truly were groundbreaking, that make The Matrix look like a B movie by comparison. The only way it does compare to some of the greats is in how influential it was.

To anyone that hadn't read any PK Dick, Ellison, etc, or watched any Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc, the story may have seemed highly original, when it was just a bunch of long existing tropes repackaged for mass appeal.
And visually it may have appeared ground breaking to anyone unfamiliar with 80's and early 90's "heroic bloodshed" Hong Kong films from the likes of Ringo Lam and John Woo, that took a near fetishistic approach to gun-play, and martial arts wirework in masterpieces like Tsui Harks "Zu"... again repackaged via some clever retooling of existing techniques.
... but to me, at the time of it's release, it was nothing new, so it's very hard for me to even consider it a groundbreaking masterpiece when (viewed through my frame of reference) it's clearly not deserving of either tag.

 

[elk1007]

looks good to me. I really liked the playing of "white rabbit" during the trailer, good song.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

I mean I'll say it. I actually did not hate the other movies. Were they as great as the first one? Hell no, but did it fit with the story enough to find it watchable enough to enjoy it? Absolutely.

Honestly speaking as someone who grew up with the movies, played the games (enjoyed the hell out of EtM and PoN) and even owns the ultimate matrix collection when it came out (which now I will have to consider obsolete thank you very much) I am not sure how to feel about this movie.

What I mean to say is if this is supposed to rewrite the history of the last two movies are we branching off into another timeline of events in the same sense that the Terminator movies tried to do? Because that ended up going into a horrible direction with each movie trying to diverge away being worse than the previous one, effectively killing the franchise in the progress. I do not think it would be a good idea to do this if that is the intended design.

Alternatively, if this is a retracing of the first movie, it could go into the whole thing about how there were a couple of versions of The Matrix prior to the one we saw in the movies, and each version of The Matrix there was always a designated "One" that could manipulate code on the level of the machines and bring the freedom of mankind. If that is incorporated here and what we are seeing in play here in this movie is a "new" version of The Matrix, then it could make a lot of sense about what is going on and what could come out of it. Honestly that is what I am hoping this would end up being, especially after what happened to Trinity and Neo at the end of the movies it would make much more sense in the long run than some sort of re-write of history.

Also, even though it was touched on in the Animatrix (and beautifully mind you), I really wish we got a proper prequel movie about The Second Renaissance. The technology and CG is there to make it a thing, and if you really wanted to, it could become its own trilogy given the amount of crazy ass shit goes down in the story itself.

Hell I would even rather have another Animatrix as well, Star Wars is getting Visions, which is basically their version of the Animatrix, give us another one of those if you are bringing life back to the franchise!

 

[CharlieWex]

In my opinion, this picture should not be grossly underestimated. Think back to the year it started filming and what a success it was. I think you should just give it a chance and watch the sequel without judgement.

 

[Veho]

​

Hype.

 

[duwen]

Marketing machine in full effect... I'm too acutely aware of how trailers are cut these days to trust that this movie will be anything other than nonsensical bullshit that tries to fool the easily wowed that it has some degree of intelligence to back up it's big-budget glitz.

 

[subcon959]

Marketing machine in full effect... I'm too acutely aware of how trailers are cut these days to trust that this movie will be anything other than nonsensical bullshit that tries to fool the easily wowed that it has some degree of intelligence to back up it's big-budget glitz.

That's one way to look at it. I'm just gonna have some fun for a couple hours.

 

[subcon959]

Well, I watched it and did have some fun for a couple hours. But... once it was over my impression was one of disappointment. There were some good moments and some totally inexplicable moments. I was right that Hugo Weaving would be missed, but his replacement was better than I expected.. The worst part though.. the end just fizzled out like they ran out of time or something.