Slashdot Mirror
Ten-disc 'Matrix' DVD Box Set Planned
squishey writes "The Matrix trilogy is to be released as part of a special ten-disc DVD boxset in time for Christmas, according to the DVD Times.
Out on December 12 and with an RRP of 44.99." Includes a lot of stuff you probably already own, and a few things you might want... like a version of Reloaded with the Enter the Matrix footage included.
This isn't a troll; I just have a warped, slashdot view of the world.
As far as all the geeks I know here say, the last movie SUCKED (or WAS TEH SUCK).
Are there enough remaining fan boys who loved the series the justify a purchase like this?
I know that for Lord of The Rings a 40 disc box set (including a full disk of Viggo Mortensen clearing his throat in the morning) would be snapped up in a jiffy by everyone here (*well, everyone but the Tolkein die hards).
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I've never played this so may get this for that (footage interleaved as Extended Reloaded). Dispite its faults, the Matrices are slick and impressive action films, the first being a finely balanced roller-coaster (with amusing product tie-ins etc.) and the other two being poorly balanced but still exciting to watch (IMHO).
Posters recognized by their sig,
As and American living in the UK, I would guess that when the set is released in the US it will be $44.99. Most new release DVDs sell for 19.99 here as they sell for $19.99 in the US.
I had the same reaction. I stopped caring about these films after seeing the second one in the theater. I've never seen the third one either.
I've always wondered why no one ever made a "phantom edit" of Matrix Reloaded with that extra footage...
...that movie studios are filming scenes specifically to cash in on the DVD aftermarket? It used to be that I would go the movie theater to see a movie on "the big screen" to see the film "the way it was meant to be seen." Now, when I go to see a movie in the theater, I feel like I am being cheated because they simply aren't showing the "entire" movie. It's now become a given that DVD's will contain "extra" or "deleted" scenes. At sometimes over $9.00 for tickets, I feel cheated by this.
A colleague of mine said "Well, you're paying the extra money for the extra DVD content." Hmmmm. Shouldn't movies now be marketed as "Movie Theater Edition" or something?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
"As far as I'm concerned, there is only The Matrix. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of any followup films."
Why even go that far? What was it about the first one that was underwear-tent-popping good?
I'm serious about this. What I saw was a flash in the pan that hardly survived a second viewing. What'd everybody else take out of it?
"Derp de derp."
Unfortunately, I doubt it'll be sold seperately, but the version of the Matrix in this box set is a brand-new transfer. Should be much cleaner. Also, the Wachowskis were never happy with the originaly DVD transfer, as it was too bright. The new transfer will be more accurate to the original theatrical release as well as more consistent with the color scheme of the sequels.
Personally, the dark green and blue of the two sequels gave me headaches, but hey, hopefully the first one won't look bad, and it'll be a much cleaner transfer and probably include a new audio mix.
Gotta chime in an alternate opinion. I thought the third film, while not as good as the first, was quite fun.
First, I will not apologize for any of the crappy Zion dialogue. The best I can say for that is that dialogue was in thankfully short supply down there. But the fight down there was breathtaking. It was expertly conceived and executed. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen if I wanted to.
And the interplay between Neo and Smith was great. The fight was classic unstoppable force impenetrable barrier in the style of a lot of anime and American comic books. The resolution was both classic and unexpected; the only way to win was to give up.
Speaking of giving up, I think a lot of the bad feelings over the third film were because people gave up after the underwhelming second film. Perhaps the third doesn't "make up" for the second, but how could it? Watch it again and you just may find you actually like it on it's own merits.
TW
Existenz, which was released simultaneously to The Matrix, is also a good alternative if you want to watch a movie with more depth. Cronenberg has really grasped a strong sense of the 'what is reality' themes from Philip K Dick, along with the technology/biological fusion themes of Gibson. It was more of a thinking movie than an action shoot-em-up. The Matrix was fun to watch (unlike the sequels), but Existenz is a movie that I thought about when leaving the theatre.
PS Side note... While writing this post I just realised that Dick and Gibson are/were essentially emmigre Americans who live(d) in Vancouver, BC. I wonder if its the rain that alters their perceptions of reality in such creative ways?...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Do not forget the dock battle. APUs were neat and the battle intense.
Trinity getting to see the sun and cloud tops drove home the idea of having always lived underground and never seeing daylight.
Granted, it could be said subjectively that the first Matrix movie was the best of the trilogy, but quite frankly, it makes me very annoyed that people would have the gall to badmouth the series the way they do. Is the Matrix Trilogy a cinematic classic that will be taught and lauded for decades to come? Short answer, no. But the way most of you geeks blab on and on about the piss-poor quality of the movies, you'd think that given the helm, and a word-processor that whatever "film," you produced would rise above the level of tripe.
Before I am flamed, I undertsand that everyone does have their own opinion, and is entitled to that opinion, but because a movies didn't follow the path you thought they would, doesn't make it utter shit. They (the Wachoski *siblings*) were able to make something very philosophical, even if it wasn't Pantheon worthy, while at the same tiem incorporating enough so that the mundanes would actually enjoy it. Add to that decent characterization, and a sustained theme throughout all three movies.
Personally, I found the second movie, sans dance sequence, to be the best of the bunch. Even though the computer graphics were a bit over the top, it did give much to think about. Did everyone forget the discussion with the Architect was in there? And that he essentially gave the whole philosophical underpinnings to the movies in the tirade? I could understand how many people would not understand the philosophy, but to you computer nerds, its rooted in math!!!
To those who say the ending sucked at the end of the third, I have no comment. Yes, it was something of a flaccid penis instead of the money shot, but look at it in relation the rest of it. Neo is the 1. Not the ONE, or One, but the 1. The Matrix is an equation, or rather supposed to be a balanced equation. The Architect spells out that because of a flaw, a 1 results in the equation, and manifests itself in the Matrix. Neo. I know everyone may already know this, but keep with me. When Neo talks with the Oracle, she says that Smith is his opposite, due to the Matrix trying to balance itself. Hmmm, Neo, is one...Smith is...? -1. Period. Therefore, neither of them can really *win* they can only beat themselves into battered pulps. Neo realizes this, and stops fighting. Yea, even dumbass Neo realizes it. Now, to all you advanced theoretical math types that prowl these forums, 1+(-1)=?
Ahh, the balancing of the Matrix.
Weak? Maybe. Deus ex Machina? Certainly not. They cement reasons that everything happened, even though it may not have happened as you would have fantasized. So I reiterate what I said again, this time as a challenge. To those mouthing off, make something, or even just conceptualize something that you think is better than the Matrix concept. Add to that, how you would execute it. Until then, just shut your mouths and read a book.
For one thing, it will be remembered as the last movie that had actual, cool special effects besides simple 3d-rendered models. The fights in Matrix were 1/10th as spectacular as those in the sequels, but were so much more enjoyable and enthralling to watch because the actors were real humans and not models.
Maybe its just me, but I can still tell very, very easily when they switch over from meatspace people to 3d models in most movies, and somehow my eyes gloss over at the 3d human substitutes. Spiderman 2 was the only movie where I had difficulty telling, and that was because his costume is so inhuman looking already. In Harry Potter, LoTR, Van Helsing, and Matrix 2,3, all the CG scenes somehow just don't grip me the way the real meatspace scenes do. Its different in older movies where the CG was only used for wholly inhuman things, or in all-CG movies where the CG version _is_ the character, but in new movies where CG is just used for impossible stunts - it just becomes ignorable.
Except she would have seen the sun in the Matrix, so it wouldn't have been THAT fascinating.
Hell, she wore sunglasses almost the entire time. What were they for?
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.