Matrix Sequel Delayed to 2003
moojin was among the countless slashdot readers who noted that scifi (No I am Sci-Fi dammit) has reported that the 'Matrix Reloaded' will be delayed until the summer 2003. I'm bummed, but I'm willing to wait to see the Brothers W do it right (no way I'm gonna try to spell that name ;)
That sounds interesting. I wonder if any other movies have ever been shot in this fashion. Doing it this way seems a good way to maximize profit. You don't have to try to get all the actors together again, you don't have to get all the clearences to shot at certain locations again, you don't get unintended delay from actors pursuing aditional projects, etc. The only disadvantage is you could release both films at or near the same time, but you would never do that (to again maximize profit) which has the small potential to irritate Matrix loyalists. Other then that, this seems smart from a production angle. Does anyone know of other films that have tried this?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
The marketing dept. must have decided it was more strategic to release in the summer 2003. It takes like 8 months to make a movie.
Delays are almost always for marketing reasons.
At the end of the movie all of the people (with some notable exceptions) are still in pods. We never get to see the free city. There is still a lot to do. Being in control of the matrix does nothing about freeing mankind.
The city is being overrun by a herd of Lucy Liu's.
there is some confusion as to what exactly is going on...
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Sounds good...except that you either have to accept the original story, that the sub is real and the city is not [because in the city Neo can bend walls and fly], or you have to include the entire world, sub+city, in the sim. Thus blowing to hell your reasoning above.
What's more, if the first-half city were real and the second-half city fake, it would be far more difficult to simulate the city and make it look&feel exactly the same as a real-world place, than to create an experience which was consistently VR.
Yes it's true that most of the sequels, written after the success of first movie, are bad.
But if the story was written, and shot, in more than one piece, it changes.
For example Titanic II would be bad, because they have to "make up" things. But, "the emprire strikes back" was good, because the story included that from the beginning.
(Sorry for my bad english)
they said that they are filming this as one long movie, not two... Interesting.
I hope to see more story and less visual crap. Every movie out these days has "Matrix-like" moves and it is just getting old. I would really hope that the next one is just as groundbreaking as the first.
The test of a good movie, to me, is when I've seen it 100 times, and then watch it again and come up with a new theory that suddenly re-explains everything. Like when I finally understood the Madonna conversation at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs (metaphor for whole movie, acting like first time thieves gets them hurt).
My latest - The movie says that it is the first half of the movie that takes place in a 'fake' world. And we buy into it. Look deeper. The evidence is flimsy. In fact, it is more elegant if the second half of the movie takes place in a fake world. The tech that creates a fake world could create either. But wouldn't it be easier to make one sub and a little surroundings versus the entire world? Think about it. Neo lives a boring life in our boring world, then he meets these weird people, takes a pill, weird shit happens, they strap him into a vr chair, and boom, the whole second half of the movie is imaginary. Boring programmer vs. the savior of the world, which is more likely?