Slashdot Mirror


The Matrix Re-Reloaded

derGoldstein writes "According to Keanu Reeves: ' Matrix 4 and 5 are coming.' At an event that took place at the London International School of Performing Arts, 'Reeves revealed that he met with the Wachowskis around Christmas. They told him that they completed script treatments for two more Matrix installments. They are planning to make the films in 3D and have already met with James Cameron to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. Reeves added that he's excited to return as Neo and promised that the treatments will truly revolutionize the action genre like the first Matrix film did.'"

640 comments

  1. No. by chemicaldave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just...no. Stop it right now. Stop before something bad happens.

    1. Re:No. by jurgenaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something bad happened two movies ago.

    2. Re:No. by gander666 · · Score: 1

      Something that was a crime against humanity occurred two episodes ago. Please tell me this is a bad joke

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    3. Re:No. by memnock · · Score: 1

      totally on board with that sentiment. plus 3D? come-the-fuck-on. like chemicaldave said, this should just stop at "No".

    4. Re:No. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      It's 3D - that's bad enough.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    5. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, they've allready released reloaded.

    6. Re:No. by s0litaire · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just hoping for a Bill & Ted / Matrix Crossover movie....

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    7. Re:No. by Revek · · Score: 1

      Carlin as the architect. Missy as the Oracle.

    8. Re:No. by RulerOf · · Score: 1

      Carlin as the architect. Missy as the Oracle.

      Pffft! Carlin's dead! It's not like you can just resurrect somebody to play a role in a film. I mean, even Neo dies at the end of the third Matrix film so there's no way for them to----

      Oh fuck, nevermind.

      Any chance we can get them to recast Christian Bale as Neo instead? ....It worked for the Oracle.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    9. Re:No. by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Just to play Devil's advocate:

      What if they made sequels that were actually good?

      Many of course would say that they shouldn't, but the films will get made anyway.

      With the assumption that the films will get made, what would you want them to make?

    10. Re:No. by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Just...no. Stop it right now. Stop before something bad happens.

      I guess you never saw the last two.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christian Bale? Really? Fuck Christian Bale and his mumbling Batman-killing crap.

    12. Re:No. by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Maybe Lucas is involved? Oh sorry, that may be a worse joke.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    13. Re:No. by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even a good 4 and 5 would be a trigger to remind you of an awful 2 and 3. Some memories are best left buried.The bit about 3D is a big warning. 3D shouldn't be the driver behind the movie - get a decent story first and use 3D if it enhances the story, anything else just smells of cash-in.

    14. Re:No. by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know the plot: Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, HHGTTG and Battlestar Galactica worlds are all instances of the matrix, like dimensions. A hero from each dimension will come wearing a diferent colored costume, and together will form The Matrix Rangers.

      Neo will be the Blue Ranger, Adama the Black, Kirk the Pink, Frodo the Yellow and Arthur Dent the Red. They will ride a big Cylon mecha called Sauron.

      They will find out that the Matrix true purpose is not energy generation, but to discover the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

      In the end, we all die of boredom.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    15. Re:No. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Kelbear, dude, first of all the first things out of their mouths is 3D which has become the turd polish of our age. Don't have any original ideas? Go "Dr Tongue's 3D house of pancakes" and cash the check. Two they pretty much took a big steaming dump on the story with the third one. Now I know a bunch hate the second one, but if they would have went with "They are still in The Matrix" at the start of the third instead of "Neo is Jesus" bullshit most would have went along with the second.

      So the ONLY way I can see them saving this franchise is to have the movie start with Reeves and the dumbass brothers coming out on stage saying something like "We're sorry, we're REALLY really sorry. We don't know what the fuck we were thinking with that hard right turn into stupid land with Neo blasting shit outside The Matrix, so if you'll just bear with us we're gonna pretend those God awful second and third movies don't exist and start over, okay?"

      Because there is NO way to keep going with the original story and not end up with "Batman & Robin" levels of stupid. In fact the only way I can see them continuing with the same story is to go Batman & Robin and just make the thing a giant parody of itself. Because as another poster so aptly wrote the thing by the end of the third had become a totally awful Dragonball Z ripoff that had fuck all to do with anything in the first one.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:No. by stms · · Score: 0

      I for one want to see this. Someone needed to take that position. Anyway it can't ruin the series (much) more than the other two already have.

    17. Re:No. by jimktrains · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not sure what you're talking about. There was only one matrix movie. There were some movies on the docket, but everyone held true to their artistic values and didn't make them. Good men I tell you; good men.

      While we're at it: I'd like to clear up the rumors around Star Wars. There were some very terrible people suggesting that Lucas do some very terrible things including a prequel trilogy. As far as I heard, ideas were drawn up and they were so bad that some of Lucas' inner circle pursuded him no to create a prequel or "remaster" the theatrical version. Those people are saints and heros in my opinion. Can you imagine if they weren't honest with him?

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
    18. Re:No. by Dare978Devil · · Score: 1

      Just...no. Stop it right now. Stop before something bad happens.

      HAHAHAHA! I love the Slashdot naysayers, you can always count on them to start the whining.... Man, the first Matrix was probably the best sci-fi action movie I had ever seen. I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival before it was released, and knew absolutely nothing about it at the time. 20 mins in, I was going WTF... ? 2 hours later, I never wanted this film to end. When they released 2 and 3, although the originality of the first was now forever lost, and the big reveal that we are all human batteries was long past, the story was engrossing and the effects were terrific. I loved this trilogy. Then the brothers came out with "V for Vendetta". That movie was brilliant! I watch it about once a year on DVD, and enjoy it every time. So I have to say, I cannot wait to find out what they have in store for us in Matrix 4 & 5. Bash them all you like, I will still go and see the movies. DD.

    19. Re:No. by goombah99 · · Score: 2

      Dang. I was going to go see it.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    20. Re:No. by MalHavoc · · Score: 2

      They will ride a big Cylon mecha called Sauron.

      Your description is epic and I would gladly pay ten bucks to see it. However, you need something dinosaurish. Therefore, I think they should ride a Sauronisaurus Rex, instead. It could stomp around emitting Polish sausage farts and flatten on Ewoks with impunity.

    21. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only a bad joke if you take the blue pill. If you take the red pill, Morpheous will appear and beat the dogshit out of the Whackadoodle brothers and proceed to choke acting talent into keanu reeves.

    22. Re:No. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know what you mean. Saw this really great movie in the 80's called Highlander. It's a good thing Hollywood isn't so corrupt and bankrupt of ideas as to attempt a sequel with that! I mean really, how dumb would that be? The tagline for the movie is "There can be only one!"

      A sequel to that wouldn't make any sense at all. I'm so glad they never tried.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    23. Re:No. by eedwardsjr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Christopher Walken as the Architect. win.

    24. Re:No. by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about the 1st and 2nd sequels, but there's not really any reason to re-open the Matrix story other than to make money.

    25. Re:No. by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I forgot, Yoda is the Green one. But he is not important in this plot since he's dead.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    26. Re:No. by polaris20 · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this guy up. Walken as the Architect? Doesn't. Get. Any. Better.

    27. Re:No. by Dare978Devil · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about the 1st and 2nd sequels, but there's not really any reason to re-open the Matrix story other than to make money.

      True. But the Brothers may surprise you. The additional stories in the Animatrix were all well done, there is no reason to think they can't create another intriguing plot line in a new major motion picture. And I would much prefer Hollywood make money using original thinkers like the Wachowskis than turning out dreck such as Charlie's Angels 2 or Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

    28. Re:No. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Christian Bale? Really? Fuck Christian Bale and his mumbling Batman-killing crap.

      Personally, I loved 'The Fighter':

      Wahlberg: "Say 'hi' to your motha for me."

      Bale: [batman]"I ALREADY DID"[/batman]

    29. Re:No. by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 2

      My guess is that the "real world" was just another simulation built to really keep humans enslaved.

    30. Re:No. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You missed a golden opportunity. The black ranger should not be Adama but Obama. I mean, he's just a character in a bad TV drama anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and all the other fans keep spouting off that same tired, overdone joke over and over and over again. You keep thinking it's funny. You keep thinking everyone agrees with you, are just as cool as you, understands you, and you can keep talking like that all day long and think nothing of it.

      And then someone heard you.

      And.

      Then.

      Someone.

      Heard.

      You.

      And they thought you were right.

      Are you happy now? Think that maybe, just maybe, shutting the fuck up and ignoring it would've been a better idea?

    32. Re:No. by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 2

      Ok let's be clear, even the first Matrix film was wholey unbelievable. They never took a giant dump on the story, it was never sensical to begin with. It was always a philosophical thing about what it means to have free will, and to rise against The Power. They basically outline how unbelievable the plot is right where Morpheus explains what the Matrix was - "combined with a form of fusion, the machines had all the power they would ever need". So let me get this straight, they used Fusion power, but somehow still needed to combine that with the incredibly fucking complex task of keeping an entire race enslaved in an elaborate virtual world? Really?

      Also, Neo wasn't Jesus. He didn't die for anyones sins, he wasn't sent down by God to walk amongst men. Neo was an anomaly - the result of the machine's inability to completely trap human free will.

      Finally, considering the number of implants inside Neo (the most obvious being the giant fucking hole in his neck), possibly including all manner of brain computer interfaces, it's not exactly a giant stretch of the imagination that he can sense or interfere with nearby machines. Nor would it be impossible for Smith to "reprogram" a human being, the plot was already utterly absurd 1/3 of the way through the FIRST film.

    33. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the person doesn't know what I am talking about, then they can fuck right off.

      Speaking of fucking off, why don't you?

    34. Re:No. by rudeboy1 · · Score: 1

      I agree with this... except for the fact that this story came about when Keanu said he was on board for it. He's DEAD in the third film. I guess he can be digital only, but even the digital version of him blew up with all the other Smiths. I guess the 01 city backup tapes are pretty thorough...

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    35. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, see, in this one they send a killer robot to the past to kill the Wachowski brothers before they can create the two sequels.

      Oh wait, differen't movie.

    36. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will ride a big Cylon mecha called Sauron.

      No, they will ride a big Cylon mech called VOLTRON!!!

    37. Re:No. by Drethon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The TV series was good but otherwise...

    38. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoa

    39. Re:No. by chill · · Score: 1

      I see you've completely blocked "Indiana Jones IV". Good for you! How long did the recovery take? You can answer in ounces of alcohol or other braincell-killing drug of your choice.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    40. Re:No. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      You forgot Luke Skywalker, Elric and Lancelot Link....

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    41. Re:No. by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      They will find out that the Matrix true purpose is not energy generation, but to discover the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

      And then the execs cancel Stargate Universe.

    42. Re:No. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      They cancelled "Firefly" after 13 shows, but this horrible "American Idol - Politics" keeps dragging on season after season.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    43. Re:No. by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how exactly your mind works, but it's both very entertaining and very disturbing at the same time.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    44. Re:No. by rleibman · · Score: 1

      I think I read something by Robert Heinlein that sounded just like that.

    45. Re:No. by jimktrains · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why would I have to recover from something that was never even rumored to exist?

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
    46. Re:No. by enjerth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ever since the end of Reloaded, I had hoped that's where the story would go. Neo had powers "outside" of the Matrix? His powers just branched out into the "real world" layer of the Matrix, where all who thought they were free were still enslaved. He has to re-learn his skills in this second layer, which was built just to contain "the anomaly" of the one and all the destruction he could inflict. The prophecy, the real world et all are a bunch of programs created to guide and distract the anomaly and in part to study it, to learn how best to keep it under control.

      In the moment that Neo died, he finally saw through the Matrix, and he awoke in the real world. Now the prophecy is all bunk and Neo is in control of his own destiny, but he is finally able to do what Morpheus said he would do, free us all. Morpheus was still enslaved, and perhaps deep down inside he knew it. Neo is more than the prophecy ever foretold and the path before him now is new and fresh.

    47. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one of the 3 Highlander TV series are you referring to?

    48. Re:No. by Iryan · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I quite liked the Highlander series. Imho it was better than the film, even if it is set in another universe where Connor never wins the price.

    49. Re:No. by bonch · · Score: 1

      You know what? Fuck it. The last two were disappointing enough that I'm open to having a good time with two more sequels if they're decent.

    50. Re:No. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Ever since the end of Reloaded, I had hoped that's where the story would go. Neo had powers "outside" of the Matrix?

      Exactly what I thought, too.

      Of course that's a receipt for arbitrary many sequels, because there is no real world, it's simulations all the way down. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    51. Re:No. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The dinosaurs come into play when they find parts of the code of a jurassic simulation, fill the missing bits with Matrix code and start the simulation. The main problem in escaping is that they have to build a jurassic phone, because you need a phone to leave the world.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    52. Re:No. by Stregano · · Score: 1

      They actually have a good jumping off point to go from after Neo recovers from the battle with Agent Smith. "But *Gasp* he died". No, he didn't and this is why:
      At the end of the first Matrix movie, Neo merged with Agent Smith and effectively took him out. Now, keep this in mind with the final battle and also what the Oracle says about Agent Smith and Neo. She explains that they counter balance each other. This means that if Agent Smith is that strong, so is Neo. This also means that when Neo was weaker and just realized he was the one in the first movie, that Agent Smith, since he is the counter blanace, was effectively balancing Neo at that given time as well.

      Since Neo survived the first time merging with Agent Smith, since they balance each other, this means that he would be balanced enough with Agent Smith to survive the second merge. Remember, they balance each other, which means if you can survive one attack even when you are low powered, you will be able to survive it no matter what your level is.

      This means Neo did NOT die at the end of the movie. You assume he does, but given the facts of how the Oracle explained that there is a balance, there is far more proof that he is alive.

      Besides, if he has powers in the real world, that means 1 of 2 things: he is part machine, or nobody was really ever freed, they were just shifted to another "server".
      Those 2 options make sense, but it is possible they think of something else. Reeves confirmed the role of Neo, so this will be sequels, since Neo's story started at the beginning with Matrix 1

      --
      The world is how you make it
    53. Re:No. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Actually the last movie will end as follows:

      Neo wakes up, recognizes that it was all nothing but an extended drug trip, and gets fired from his job because he didn't show up for a whole week. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    54. Re:No. by kindbud · · Score: 2

      Kirk the Pink.

      Kirk: Pink Ranger sounds like Pussy Ranger. How 'bout if I'm Purple Ranger? That sounds good to me. I'll be Purple Ranger.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    55. Re:No. by kindbud · · Score: 1

      Nope, that was Phillip Jose Farmer.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    56. Re:No. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      He can't have seen the last two, because they are not yet produced.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    57. Re:No. by Chakra5 · · Score: 1

      or it's a prequel

      --
      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
    58. Re:No. by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      The original story had the machines using human brains as CPUs.. ie for processing capacity, but that was deemed too complicated for American audiences to comprehend, so we got the idiotic "human as power generators" crap instead.

      It was a stupid kludge, but I didn't let it ruin the entire movie for me. YMMV.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    59. Re:No. by Yert · · Score: 1

      The Number of the Beast, most likely. Fourth wall? What fourth wall?

      --
      Truck driver, plumber, Linux systems engineer.
    60. Re:No. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine if they weren't honest with him?

      They'd be filthy fucking rich and not care about some hour and a half long fantastical childrens' story, or its 'factual coherrency'?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    61. Re:No. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      >> Ever since the end of Reloaded, I had hoped that's where the story would go. Neo had powers "outside" of the Matrix?
      > Exactly what I thought, too.

      At the end of the first Matrix, Neo says:

      I didn't come here to
      tell you how this is going to end, I came here to tell you
      how this is going to begin. Now, I'm going to hang up
      this phone, and 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.

      Neo, becoming "Jesus", and being able to "bring back the dead", is perfectly par for the course.

      > Of course that's a receipt for arbitrary many sequels, because there is no real world, it's simulations all the way down. :-)

      That's not true... See these excellent articles / analysis:

      * http://www.wylfing.net/essays/matrix_reloaded.html

      * http://www.wylfing.net/essays/matrix_revolutions.html

      Note: It doesn't describe how Neo has power in the real world at the end of Matrix Reloaded aside from: "The conceptual barriers between the real world and the Matrix will be eroded -- as if it isn't already. But also the heightened man-machine interaction in the Matrix will be expressed more in the real world (a la Neo's power over the sentinels)."

      Lastly, FINALLY, (smoking-gun?) proof that The Matrix was originally a trilogy:
      The Architect's wall of video monitors in 'Reloaded' appears briefly in 'The Matrix': Immediately after Neo is apprehended at MetaCorTechs, and before he is interrogated by Agent Smith, the camera slowly zooms in on several video monitors showing Neo sitting in the interrogation room. Many people assumed the monitors were connected to interrogation room cameras in the police station, but curiously, they all showed the same image of Neo in his room. The Architect was watching Neo even before he was awakened by Morpheus and his crew.

    62. Re:No. by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Carlin as the architect. Missy as the Oracle.

      Pffft! Carlin's dead! It's not like you can just resurrect somebody to play a role in a film.

      Won't be the first movie where they used clips from dead actors to make them into a new movie. Granted it would be great to Carlin as the train conductor instead.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    63. Re:No. by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      That would definitely have been more interesting, reminds me of Hyperion which had a similar concept of AIs running a futuristic version of the internet (ok that's a horrible comparison) in exchange for using human brains as processors.

    64. Re:No. by Doctor+Morbius · · Score: 1

      I read that book, what a piece of crap. It literally made me angry to read it and I love Heinlein. Pantheistic solipsism is nonsense.

      --
      If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
    65. Re:No. by kjcole · · Score: 1

      Oh, take a pill, will ya? ;-)

    66. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it's called Retro-Continuity

    67. Re:No. by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      Close.. but they will ride in a time traveling phone booth.

    68. Re:No. by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be a Police Call Box?

    69. Re:No. by Yert · · Score: 1

      It's one of my favorite books - I enjoyed the idea of alternate universes extending into other universes as works of fiction - or vice versa, as you will. It was great fun for me to recognize characters from other books and genres as the party ran into them along the way. Of course, I'm currently reading Zelazny's Amber books, and wondering who ripped off who...

      --
      Truck driver, plumber, Linux systems engineer.
    70. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You killed Neo, you digital dickweed!

    71. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so awesome I'm stealing it.

    72. Re:No. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Whoa!

    73. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the plot: Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, HHGTTG and Battlestar Galactica worlds are all instances of the matrix, like dimensions. A hero from each dimension will come wearing a diferent colored costume, and together will form The Matrix Rangers.

      Neo will be the Blue Ranger, Adama the Black, Kirk the Pink, Frodo the Yellow and Arthur Dent the Red. They will ride a big Cylon mecha called Sauron.

      They will find out that the Matrix true purpose is not energy generation, but to discover the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

      In the end, we all die of boredom.

      I would watch that move and pay $20 for the ticket, 3D or no.

    74. Re:No. by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      I admit the Following:

      1) The last two movies were progressively disappointing.

      2) I'll go see 4 and 5, in spite of of 2 and 3. I mean really, ANY Matrix movie is better than 90% of the drivel being produced.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    75. Re:No. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Speaking of fucking off, why don't you?"

      How shall we fuck off oh lord?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    76. Re:No. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Haha, that's where I suspected it was going, too. I actually didn't hate the second movie, largely because the ending was (at the time) awesome, for the very reason that it raised all kinds of questions about WTF was really going on--questions which they chose not to bother addressing in 3, opting instead for "then some magic happens; fin".

      It wasn't until the third installment came out that I started to dislike 2, since I then knew it was leading up to a pile of shit and it can't really stand on its own.

      Who knows, maybe they'll partially redeem 2 & 3 with the new movies. Not holding out a lot of hope, but maybe.

    77. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is AWESOME!!!! But they have to cast the old, fat William Shatner as Kirk, not some new, wish I were a young Sean Connery Kirk.

    78. Re:No. by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

      I've always thought that the one thing The Matrix franchise needed is more cowbell.

    79. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naturally, of course, the Arthur Dent character, wearing Red, is doomed to die!

    80. Re:No. by Genda · · Score: 1

      Actually the plot I was kind of envisioning would go something like: Neo would wake up in Wonderland, fall in love with the Red Queen, she would then scorpion kicks Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter in the head (no small feat kicking over that giant melon with those tiny legs.) Then Neo get's in a deadly kungfu with 10,000 Scarecrow clones and Dorthy kicks Neo in the groin with a ruby slipper. This suddenly causes a flock of flying monkeys to shoot out of Neo's ass. The monkeys gather forces with the Wicked Witch of the West and kill the Wachowski brothers, resulting in no further sequels. The land rejoices!!!

      I'm just a sucker for happy endings.

    81. Re:No. by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      They've already covered this in the Manchurian Candidate (twice)

    82. Re:No. by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Also, the Jews have this pentalogy of books that seems to be pretty popular with them.
      I heard a bunch of writers were planning to do a sequel that's geared more to the international market but they could never agree on the details so they called the whole thing off.

      Heh, I can only imagine the kinds of flamewars that would have lead to, probably something along the lines of the US vs UK versions of The Office.

    83. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you put it in that light, inception seems eerily similar to that concept... "a dream within a dream."

    84. Re:No. by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Um, only 1 exists? Though I know the original series and the Raven (do I really want to watch it?), what is the third one on tv?

    85. Re:No. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping for a Bill & Ted / Matrix Crossover movie....

      Or a MST3K edition...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    86. Re:No. by cong06 · · Score: 1
      This is a hoax. From:
      http://screenrant.com/matrix-4-5-bill-and-ted-3-keanu-reeves-rob-97796/

      [UPDATE: The Senior Administrator for the London International School of Performing Arts informed me that Keanu Reeves made no appearance there, assuming that's the correct school. We're waiting on WB for more info.]

      [UPDATE 2: Keanu's rep and the studio confirmed that this is entirely fabricated. The only somewhat true part is about the future Robin Hood script, which we knew about already, but it didn't cost anywhere near as much as $5 million]

    87. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just creamed my pants...

    88. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Highlander had 4 extremely awful sequels.

      Highlander II: The Quickening
      Highlander: The Final Dimension
      Highlander: Endgame
      Highlander: The Source

    89. Re:No. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The ending was not very clear... Are the billions of humans in the world all dead now, turned into Agent Smiths? If not what happens when they wake up, cold and naked and unable to see? I can imagine Morpheus doing his "welcome to reality, you are all now free!" speech followed by the nearest guy asking "er, yeah, great... I'm hungry, where is McDonalds? And I need some clothes, is there a Gap around here? Oh wait, I left my credit card in my jacket..."

      Or is it just the people living in Zion, in which case might they not be better off in the Matrix anyway? The choice seems to be a relatively comfortable modern life or living in a cave with no TV.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    90. Re:No. by jace_d · · Score: 1

      So it'd be like the matrix pulling an aizen.(link to the aizen parody on onemanga forums ) . I can see that happening..."since when were you under the impression that you were out of the matrix?"

    91. Re:No. by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Dude, The Empire Strikes Back. End of message.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    92. Re:No. by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Just...no. Stop it right now. Stop before something bad happens.

      I relegated The Matrix series to "interesting but irksome". Perhaps more Matrix movies have their place in our high-tech world. The films artistically rendered AI and computing ideas to suit the masses. Mixed up with a handful of bizarre premises, they amused despite a thin plot.

      In the interim the public's knowledge of the computing world has evolved, and it would be sensible to have a Control-Alt-Delete edition of the Matrix. Rather than spiraling off with the same storyline, a new story to support the thesis that mankind needs to be afraid, very afraid of the might of computers would be appealing.

      In a way we are building a Matrix all around us right now, without having to be put into dreamland. What we accept as reality is increasingly (slow at the moment, but quickening) a constructed facade behind which machines make decisions. Ultimately machines will be the ones wearing the pants.

      A case in point is cars that drive themselves. If Google didn't let the cat out of the bag, how long would people have gone around blissfuly ignorant of the shenanigans?

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    93. Re:No. by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      I just tell myself that Morpheus is very confused about what the humans are actually being used for. ;)

      Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion are two of my favourite novels. :) There are definitely some parallels, with the AIs maintaining a "web" they use to leech off of the humans.

      KWATZ!

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  2. Oh... by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the love of the great fire cactus.

    Sad thing is, even though most people equate the two existing sequels to the experience of having a lightly chilled olive fork rammed into your eye this movie will get its audience. The first matrix was just that damn good that they can keep cranking out shitty sequels and people will watch them, knowing full well that they are going to suck.

    1. Re:Oh... by somersault · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing is that as action movies in their own right, the 2nd and 3rd movies were fine. They just didn't have the epic mindblowing nature of the first. After a few years of not watching them and the whole Matrix hype dying down, I don't mind them so much. I'd definitely give the Matrix 4 and 5 a chance, maybe the Wachowskis have learned something from 2 and 3. Then again, maybe they're just the next George Lucas.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Oh... by chichilalescu · · Score: 2

      at least they're not simply updating the special effects to the movies they already have...

      anyway, I agree with your view. my view is that movies 2 and 3 have absolutely nothing in common except the characters to movie 1: movie 1 is about a guy finding out he's living in a dream world, and him developping the power to break the rules of the dream; movies 2 and 3 are just superhero movies.

      As long as they find it important to say they'd be in 3D, I'm pretty certain that these new movies will be new superhero movies. cool and funny just like 2 and 3, but not more.

      --
      new sig
    3. Re:Oh... by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      Maybe people said the same about the 1st trilogy of Star Wars and the shitty 2 first sequels before the 3rd came out. Maybe, with a bit of hope, they fix the damage done in the sequels.

      In the other hand, if they are considering 3D for it, or finally do a movie where 3D makes sense, or they just plan to leech a bit more money of the series knowing how much people paid to see quality films like Transformers 2.

    4. Re:Oh... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      maybe the Wachowskis have learned something from 2 and 3. Then again, maybe they're just the next George Lucas.

      "Meesa save da humans in da Matrix! Whoah."

    5. Re:Oh... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The thing is that as action movies in their own right, the 2nd and 3rd movies were fine.

      The second movie extended the pointless action sequences so much that they became... boring. I don't need to watch thirty minutes of actors in front of a green screen being superimposed onto a moving truck on the highway, thirty seconds would be plenty.

      The second movie was so bad that I had no desire whatsoever to see the third. I can only imagine they're making the 4th and 5th becuase the Wachowskis either do that or get a job flipping burgers in McDonalds.

    6. Re:Oh... by addsalt · · Score: 1

      so you're saying that we should be ready for Jar Jar?

    7. Re:Oh... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yeah I didn't really get the point in the freeway chase, especially seeing as it was the most expensive scene ever filmed in history (maybe still is?). It was nowhere near as fun as most simple car chase scenes where cars squeeze through alleyways etc.

      The third was quite different to the second. It had a lot more "real world" action - though with the revelation at the end of the second movie you have to wonder if they're inside yet another Matrix I guess. I wouln't say it's made made entirely clear, but I'd guess they were. I also found the 3rd kind of disappointing when I first saw it, but I'd say it's worth watching just to find out the rest of the story.

      I thought Speed Racer was an enjoyable movie. The driving scenes were much improved upon The Matrix 2 at least ;) Christina Ricci helped too

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A New Hope?

    9. Re:Oh... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is, even though most people equate the two existing sequels to the experience of having a lightly chilled olive fork rammed into your eye

      The only thing I didn't like about the sequels was that the second movie ended with "to be continued."

    10. Re:Oh... by Stele · · Score: 2

      I don't need to watch thirty minutes of actors in front of a green screen being superimposed onto a moving truck on the highway, thirty seconds would be plenty.

      Good, because that sequence wasn't shot in front of a green screen.

    11. Re:Oh... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the second and third movies being fine. The second's script was mediocre, and the third's was a *real* assault on humanity. How many times did one character turn to another and say, "But let me ask you a question..." - just ASK IT!!! for frak's sake. That crap shoulda been pulled out in the first draft.

      I hope the Wachowski's realize they have something to prove now that Speed Racer tanked, and they will thus get back into putting the effort to write well.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    12. Re:Oh... by delinear · · Score: 1

      If they'd not said they were talking to Cameron about how to use 3D I'd have more faith. They might not have created bullet time but they made it an incredibly popular movie-maker's tool at the time, and the last hope I had was that they'd actually use 3D in some novel way. News that they're taking tips from Cameron dashes that hope - Avatar did nothing interesting with the medium whatsoever (actually I found it counter productive, I couldn't focus on the lush animated world around them because of the way 3D forces me to focus on what the camera's looking at, the movie would have probably worked better in 2D).

    13. Re:Oh... by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      I just try to pretend that the second Matrix doesn't exist. It was crap.

      The third one I found stupid in the first half, but the second half redeems that movies and gets back to the feel of the original. The black cat's back, the little 'rainbow-maker' girl who really saves the world. I found the ending of the third one to be excellent, but refuse to ever watch the second one again. It hella-sucked.

    14. Re:Oh... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's the thing, if they hadn't taken the characters from the Matrix and put it in it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good. The original worked on more than just the strength of the amazing effects, there was an interesting philosophy to the movie and a lot of mystery.

      The other two films shouldn't have been released with the same name and characters. I tried watching the second one and gave up after what seemed like ages because absolutely nothing was happening. And in retrospect I'm glad I gave up because I've heard those movies go a long ways toward ruining the original movie.

    15. Re:Oh... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I was able to sit through the other 2 Star Wars movies in the original trilogy and the entire new trilogy without any trouble. I gave up on that second Matrix movie after about 15 minutes because it was unwatchable dribble and exceedingly dull.

    16. Re:Oh... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      News that they're taking tips from Cameron dashes that hope

      Why? Cameron helped to invent the 3D camera that is now used and then made a movie with it. Perhaps he has some ideas on what could be done with the technology next that would be what you're looking for. The Wachowskis didn't invent bullet time, they only contracted it in, but they did make brilliant use of it. What I am sure they did not do is ignore the recommendations of the creators of the technology.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great fire cactus is a false god, and you are a fool to worship him.

    18. Re:Oh... by adisakp · · Score: 1

      I'd definitely give the Matrix 4 and 5 a chance, maybe the Wachowskis have learned something from 2 and 3.

      I heard they took what they learned from the Matrix Sequels and applied that to Speed Racer.

    19. Re:Oh... by WombatDeath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd give 4 a shot.

      The reason that the original was great, for me, is that the special effects were an awful lot better than anything I'd seen previously (pre-emptive clarification: I'm sure someone will come up with a list of prior films using the same ideas, but I hadn't seen them). The plot was fine but nothing remarkable. The reasons I enjoyed 2 and 3 less were that, yes, the plot was all over the place; but mostly that the visuals were nothing particularly arresting.

      It's now been eight or nine years since 3 was made, so perhaps in that time technology and production techniques have moved on to the point that Matrix 4 can blow my socks off anew, hopefully with a vaguely coherent plot to hang it off. Or maybe it will be a lazy cash-in. I'll at least take five minutes to read some reviews.

    20. Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ewoks pretty much ruined the first trilogy.

    21. Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first matrix was just that damn good ...

      ??

      Was it?

      Using people heat for energy (like Duracell brand batteries, to help you understand)?

      Of course, that's stupid. They could use cows in the same way. (An it still would not make sense). The heat output of animals (including ourselves), is insignificant compared to the the energy input (food).
      Why not just compost or burn the food directly for heat?

      Of course the original story that got rejected was using humans for computing power. That make a little more sense, though an AI that can simulate a human world should be able to simulate the human brain itself.

    22. Re:Oh... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed Speed Racer!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    23. Re:Oh... by somersault · · Score: 1

      In the first movie I was gobsmacked by all the acrobatic stunts and martial arts, even though I knew they were done with the air of wires - but with all the Parkour stuff I've been watching this last year, where guys can basically do all the same stuff but without the cables (and hell, even I can do some of it now :p ), it's going to take a lot to impress me in that department..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    24. Re:Oh... by winwar · · Score: 1

      "News that they're taking tips from Cameron dashes that hope - Avatar did nothing interesting with the medium whatsoever (actually I found it counter productive, I couldn't focus on the lush animated world around them because of the way 3D forces me to focus on what the camera's looking at, the movie would have probably worked better in 2D)."

      There would have been no point to the movie in 2D. The story is not original. In any case, you are free to watch it in 2D if you like. But seriously, Cameron actually used 3D. He filmed in 3D. He planned the movie in 3D. It wasn't a gimmick. It wasn't a conversion. If you are going to do a 3D movie, he certainly knows more than most if not all. The plot may suck but at least the 3D will be done well.

    25. Re:Oh... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Having ONLY seen the 3rd one, with no more than a vague notion what #1 was about and none about #2... I disagree. #3 was a mishmash of every which kind of action, but unfocused and badly paced. The most discrete example being when that girl was dying in the .. whatever they were stuck in, the entire audience (this was a private screening at a corporate function) was saying the same thing.. "Will you please just DIE already?!" And half the time I had no idea who or what was attacking whom, let alone why. And then we had virtual kung fu for no visible reason.

      This wasn't just taking a while to get up to speed because of it being a sequel. It was a mishmash from one end to the other, like a bad video game.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    26. Re:Oh... by somersault · · Score: 1

      The first movie was a lot more coherent and focused, no doubt about it. Many people still found it confusing, but I suspect most geeks "got it" the first time they saw it. It is worlds better than the sequels, and probably anyone who has seen it would tell you it's a must see. It really is very good.

      I don't know if you consider Anime as a valid art form, but the The Matrix pays homage to the Ghost in the Shell universe, especially the first movie.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    27. Re:Oh... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Anime makes my eyes bleed and my brain shrivel... but yeah, everyone (or almost everyone, anyway!) says the same, that the first was by far the best. I suppose someday I'll have to scrounge it up and watch it, so they don't take away my Geek License. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:Oh... by jafac · · Score: 1

      That's why they should hand the whole project over to George Lucas immediately.

      If they're going to go BAD. They should go REAL BAD.

      Neo, meet agent Jar-Jar.
      "meesa know kung fu!"

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    29. Re:Oh... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Ghost in the Shell is a lot more serious than the typical anime you see on American TV. My favourite TV show of all time is actually the first season of the Ghost in the Shell TV show. It's kind of like the X Files, but oriented around technology than paranormal activity, with a lot of politics and philosophical dialogue.

      Definitely. If you don't watch The Matrix this year, we'll have to revoke your geek card ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    30. Re:Oh... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      A friend regales me with all manner of serious anime plots, some actually pretty involved, but the fact is it still offends my eyes (and ears) beyond all bearing... even the 'serious' stuff.

      I see I've only got another 11 months to salvage my geek card... well, I gotta hit the library this week anyway :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    31. Re:Oh... by Duggeek · · Score: 1

      The thing is that as action movies in their own right, the 2nd and 3rd movies were fine. They just didn't have the epic mindblowing nature of the first. [...]

      Indeed! What always bothered me about the trilogy* was that the first movie opened up a big mind-blowing can of whupazz, slathered on some really good action and suspense, and left it open-ended.

      We cheered, "More! More! More!"

      What we got was a lifetime supply of action, padded-out suspense, and a trickle of story to bridge one scene to the next. They messed with the well-seasoned, tender, juicy steak recipe and gave us a goopy bowl of action; to borrow a dichotomy from the first film.

      If they want us to like Matrix again, the Wachowskis should focus on what made the first film great... balance in the mix.

      IMHO, if they took the respective stories of Reloaded and Revolution, patched them into one film and shaved a good 1:30 from the oh-god-when-will-Neo-finally-frickin-get-there suspense, they would have had a worthy successor.

      * <offtopic> RE: the word "trilogy"
      Maybe three is the magic number, but seriously, is there any such thing as a trilogy anymore? Thanks to Lucas and Spielberg, there's a bastard 4th film for Indiana Jones. There's already a 4th Pirates of the Carribbean movie, and it was being planned when the second and third were conceived. Now that it's been finalized, The Hobbit will become the 4th Lord of The Rings film as well. Will we start hearing of quadrologies next? ...pentologies? --not quite the same ring to it, IYAM.
      --
      This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
  3. Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by eldavojohn · · Score: 0, Troll

    In this same pseudo-anonymous letter we learn that Mr. Reeves is 'enthusiastic' about developing a Bill & Ted 3. And we're supposed to believe this? Neither the Matrix IV nor Bill & Ted III show up at hsx.com (which is usually really good about this stuff if it's actually in development). The only piece of news from this that is credible is the 47 Ronin film mentioned.

    Mr. Reeves is a sequel whore committed to leaching money off of success or even moderate success. Fortunately, producers and directors (or maybe his agent) around him seem to be pushing him to new things like A Scanner Darkly or the aforementioned 47 Ronin -- even though these are already books or old films. The Matrix and Bill & Ted death throes will probably deflate just like Constantine 2 ... or we can at least hope.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mr Reeves is not a sequel whore; far from it. While he did Matrix 2 and 3 (as it was part of an intended trilogy). I actually can't think of a sequel he's done *except* for the Matrix series. He's notably turned down Constantine 2, Speed 2, a 3rd Bill & Ted movie... he's actually more brave with movie selections than many A list movie stars.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by somersault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mr. Reeves is a sequel whore committed to leaching money off of success or even moderate success

      If he was really doing anything to "leech money", why would he give millions to charity, take millions in pay cuts to allow other big budget actors to be cast when he thinks they'd really suit a certain part? What about when he gave £50,000,000 to the cast and crew of the Matrix movies. Give the guy some credit where it's due. If he's making a movie, it's most likely for other reasons than money.

      Read up on the actual story of Sad Keanu and maybe you'll think differently of him. I only read all that last week. I've never thought of him as a douche, but now I think he's one of the nicest guys in show business, perhaps even the nicest guy.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's notably turned down Constantine 2, Speed 2, a 3rd Bill & Ted movie...

      Did you read the article?

      Spoke briefly about the possibility of Bill and Ted part 3 - ( Audience started laughing) but he assured us he's committed to the project.

    4. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not listed on hsx because as TFA article states, it's not in development, it was just a conversation Reeves had with the Wachowski brothers. Also, nobody pushes Reeves into anything. You can say what you want about his acting, but he has a long history of turning down big money maker parts to do the movies he wants to do. Most notably, he refused Speed 2 and Constantine 2, much to the chagrin of the producers and his agents. Otherwise your post was spot on.

    5. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say what you want about his acting

      No, I can't, at least not without risking a huge lawsuit. I can see no possible way for someone to be an worse actor than Reeves, except Hayden Christensen of course.

    6. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand how publicity works right?

      Make a few token gestures to try to distract from the greed.

      Just like how Bill Gates gives away a few bits of his fortune.
      Just like how Apple pays the Chinese workers a few dollars more.

      Dont forget that Mr Reeves can also make charitable donations instead of paying some of his taxes.

    7. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by S.O.B. · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mr. Reeves is a sequel whore committed to leaching money off of success or even moderate success

      Keanu Reeves has been in 49 movies in his career so far and the only sequels I see that he's been in are Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey and the Matrix sequels. I think that hardly qualifies him as a "sequel whore".

      If you want to talk sequel whores there are others that are worse such as Eddie Murphy (Beverly Hills Cop 1-3. Dr. Doolitle 1&2, The Nutty Professor 1&2, 48 Hours 1&2), Mel Gibson (Lethal Weapon 1-4, Mad Max 1-3), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky 1-6, Rambo 1-4) the main cast of Harry Potter and most of the cast of the Police Academy movies (#8 is in development, even Guttenberg stopped after 4).

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    8. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 1

      I like Keanu (in contrast to most posters so far) and love the 1st Matrix (like 99% of the posts on here).

      But he offered up some of his own cash to help finance the series, which has made him very wealthy in the way of his returns on investment. To my thinking this makes him a producer which is as noble a profession as anything, but it has never qualified anyone for sainthood

      --
      I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    9. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Mr Reeves is not a sequel whore; far from it. While he did Matrix 2 and 3 (as it was part of an intended trilogy). I actually can't think of a sequel he's done *except* for the Matrix series. He's notably turned down Constantine 2, Speed 2, a 3rd Bill & Ted movie... he's actually more brave with movie selections than many A list movie stars.

      Keanu really can't act very well. As long as his only lines are "Whoa!" and "I am an FBI Agent!" Then he will be fine.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    10. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      I actually can't think of a sequel he's done *except* for the Matrix series. He's notably turned down ... a 3rd Bill & Ted movie...

      (Emphasis mine). I'd say the second Bill and Ted movie would count as a sequel in most people's books...

    11. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by tb()ne · · Score: 1

      I actually can't think of a sequel he's done *except* for the Matrix series. He's notably turned down Constantine 2, Speed 2, a 3rd Bill & Ted movie...

      You can't think of any sequels other than the Matrix series?!? I think you can. Here's a hint from your post: He turned down a 3rd Bill & Ted movie.

      Come on..... You can do this.....

    12. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, don't mean to be a pedant, but him turning down a 3rd Bill & Ted movie kind of invalidates your own argument. That kind of pre-supposes there had already been a 2nd, and that, technically, is a sequel.

    13. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      so these people gave away all this money because of pr, not because they actually wanted to help, says random internet troll with mind reading powers

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      Um, don't mean to be a pedant...

      Haha! I challenge your non-peadant-meaning suggestion and say to you that yes, you did mean to be a pedant but stated the aforementioned non-pedantry-stance as an ironic twist to make the tale more risible to the reader.

    15. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by somersault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are an idiot. The stuff he's doing obviously hasn't been publicised much, or everyone would know about it and eldavojohn wouldn't have been being such a dick.

      He gives away lots of money to cancer charities as his sister has leukemia. You could make the case that that's vaguely self serving, but it's still a good thing to do.

      From the Sad Keanu page:

      In his career, Keanu turns down big roles if he believes the character he would portray is too violent. He took a 90 percent pay cut on The Replacements just so Gene Hackman could be cast. Previously, he had deferred 2 million of his salary so that Al Pacino could be cast on The Devil’s Advocate. Even then, he gives most of his earnings to charity and the backstage crew/people who help on the set.

      Emphasis mine. He consistently gives away his earnings despite no need to do so, and no need for more publicity. The guy is nothing like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, he is not about the limelight and appearances. As others have said, he turned down big movies like Speed 2 and Constantine 2 (that would have made him a metric fuck-ton of money and publicity), just so he could work on smaller movies that he thought were more worth making.

      In TFA he also says he's doing The Matrix 4 and 5 "to give the fans the sequels he feels they deserve", so hopefully they'll be a lot more like the first movie. Likewise I doubt he'd be doing B&T 3 unless it's going to be a great movie. From what I've read he often used to wish that people would forget he was in Bill & Ted and take note of his more serious work!

      You can continue being cynical if you wish, but from all the stuff I read last week and today, he sounds like a very humble, admirable and down to earth (as much as it's possible to be when you're that famous) guy.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't count the Harry potter kids since it's a series of books. It would be like saying Elijah Wood was a sequel whore because of LotR.

    17. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like his movies too, I think he's fine for the parts he's played, it just so happens most of those roles cast him as bewildered, depressed, or emotionless :p

      He was pretty wealthy anyway, and has had plenty of opportunities to become even more wealthy that he hasn't taken, so I really don't think he's doing it for the money. It sounds more like he actually takes his acting and movies seriously, and does the projects that he feels are most worthwhile creatively. I certainly think he tends to choose interesting movies to take part in, they're often thought provoking. In TFA he's quoted as saying "a good script is worth its weight in gold".

    18. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dont forget that Mr Reeves can also make charitable donations instead of paying some of his taxes.

      How is that pertinent? Charitable donations are a deduction, not a credit, which means that don't pay his taxes, they just reduce his effective income. Which makes sense; you don't get taxed on charity. And that's true of everyone; anyone can do this.

    19. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no, no.....

      The first was "Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure", while the second was "Bill and Teds Bogus Journey"

      Clearly, there isn't a "2" in the second title. Additionally, a sequel to an excellent adventure would be another excellent adventure. The second B&T movie was a bogus journey, which is the converse of an excellent adventure.

      If anything, "Bill and Teds Bogus Journey" is an anti-sequel.....with death, aliens and robots.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    20. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget that Mr Reeves can also make charitable donations instead of paying some of his taxes.

      Ahhhhh. Stop it already. Please go learn the first thing about how taxes and deductions work. Yeah, he can donate money to avoid taxes. For each $1 he donates, he can save himself up to 35 cents. Yeah, that's a brilliant strategy. You know what, I'll give you an even better deal. Give me all the money you want, and for each $1 you give me, I'll pay 50 cents of your taxes for you.

    21. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in that linked article, he says they are working on a Bill & Ted 3.

    22. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by K4RnTs · · Score: 1

      "I actually can't think of a sequel he's done *except* for the Matrix series. He's notably turned down... a 3rd Bill & Ted movie" Me thinks a 3rd Bill & Ted would have had to have been preceded by a 2nd Bill & Ted which would have in turn had to have been a sequel to a 1st Bill & Ted.

    23. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being disingenuous. He gave away over 75% of his earnings on the Matrix movies to people when there was absolutely no obligation to do so, and after all the sequels of the time were done so there wasn't any hidden motive as far as making sure the crew stayed on. That has never ever been common, much less standard, operation for an actor or producer; it's a spirit of generosity and professional respect for others that's truly exceptional and should be lauded.

    24. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Necreia · · Score: 1

      Why is this trash marked "Informative". It's clear that the parent has no idea who "Mr. Reeves" is.

      This man gives most of his money to Charity / the staff that helps during the movie shoots / or to other actors. He's given 90%~ of his salary so that another actor could join the set that he felt 'fit the role' on more than one occasion. He lives like a real person (takes the bus, eats at local shops)..

      He is one of the very few actors that actually does it because he loves it.

    25. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so these people gave away all this money because of pr, not because they actually wanted to help, says random internet troll with mind reading powers

      Says anybody with a brain. Look at their past behaviour - especially that of Bill Gates - and tell me they are good people. I hope you don't mind if I start spewing coffee in your face because I wouldn't be able to contain my laughter if you did say so.

    26. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      cynicism is not a replacement for intelligence. you do not have a realistic understanding of human nature, you have mindlessly negative understanding of human nature

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    27. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Oh please. LotR was one book, one movie. Harry Potter is one story at a time, 7 times.

    28. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Keanu really can't act very well.

      I've actually softened on Keanu a bit. Yes, he's of limited range, but so are most actors. In the first Matrix, he was actually pretty good, the role was simple and within his range. He can't help it if the Wachovski brothers... err, siblings, took it over the top after that. If you see how much of a hot mess Speed Racer was you can see it's not the actors fault always.

    29. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Mr. Reeves is a sequel whore committed to leaching money off of success or even moderate success.

      Have to disagree with this. Whatever his limits as an actor, he does good work within those limits *and* he cares about it. Not only was "A Scanner Darkly" a bold choice that I can't see how he was talked into; and for the money part, he actually shared a *huge* part of his own profits from Matrix with the special effects guys who's work really made it stand out. This was voluntarily on his part, and not something I can think of any other movie star doing.

      http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/200305283652/keanu/reeves/matrix/1/

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    30. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Keanu quote:

      “I’m sorry my existence is not very noble or sublime.”

      Makes me want to write a screenplay just to have one of the characters say that...

      In an industry like Hollywood, only being a bit of a jerk would be quite an achievement - Keanu seems to have done a lot better than that.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      And yet, Christiansen's performance in Life as a House was amazing. Very hard to believe that this was the same person who made the Star Wars prequels, or Jumper.

      Similarly, Reeves' performance in The Devil's Advocate was stunning. Compare it to Bill & Ted, and it's impossible to believe you're looking at the same actor. This is made doubly impressive when you consider that Reeves turned down being paid on the movie so that the producers would have enough money to cast Al Pacino as well.

      I guess the point I'm trying to make is that maybe your problems with these actors has more to do with shitty direction, and not with them actually being shitty actors? It's well known that George Lucas doesn't know when to stop directing and let the filmographer and actors do their jobs, for example....

    32. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by delinear · · Score: 1

      Sure, but he's got around 50 movies listed on his Wikipedia page and only the Bill & Ted and Matrix movies have sequels, and he can almost certainly be forgiven for B&T, as a young, not particularly great actor, early in his career it would have been too good an opportunity to pass up. I'd hardly say that defines him as someone who is a sequel whore.

    33. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by LeonPierre · · Score: 1

      Oh boy... are you going to get reamed to that one!

      --
      "If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
    34. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Damnit, you started a discussion that forces me to agree, in the end, with Circletimessquare.

      Yes, charity can be done for non-charitable reasons. When, and if, you donate time or money to charity are you doing so for purely self-advancing, egotistical, reasons? Why can't a person worth more money than you do the same?

      I actually don't see any past behavior of Bill Gates that would preclude him from donating to charity. Sure, I don't like his company, or some of that companies policies and decisions, but why would that preclude Mr. Gates, as an individual, donating to charity for the sake of being a decent human being?

      Apple's actions strike me as a bit more cynical, since they do have a track record of giving mouth noise to their customer base's philosophy, while acting like any other giant, irresponsible, corporation (see their environmental track record, and previous recycling policies). But then again Apple is a giant amoral corporation while Mr. Gates is a private individual who is just associated with a giant amoral corporation.

      Being rich doesn't make you an asshole, just like being poor doesn't make you magically noble.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    35. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you didn't notice, he was speaking of a select few individuals, not all humans.

      you do not have a realistic understanding of human nature

      You're naive if you truly believe that there aren't a startling number of humans who are greedy and selfish and do not care about their surroundings or the well being of others.

    36. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      STATION!

      That is all.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    37. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You just wait while they finish the script for Bill & Ted 3: Bill & Ted go to Aurora Illinois.

    38. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A Scanner Darkly gave me a headache. When I watched the making of I was dismayed to find out that a movie which should have boiled down to one good programmer writing an After Effects plugin (the graphics hide shitty shooting so all that's left is minor lighting and cinematography and the wooden performances by all actors in the film) was done by hand and still looked like wavery dogshit. A whole movie that looks like a scene you play out in a video game where you're drunk or perhaps on acid? Never again. So glad I didn't see Waking Life.

      I mean seriously, that whole fucking movie was a gimmick and it's somehow fortunate that he's been pushed towards a failed experiment in bad, manual graphics instead of making more movies that people clearly want to see? It is simply not a foregone conclusion that the Matrix sequels were bad like it is eith SW Ep I-III.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's a long list of popular "actors" who don't actually act. Keanu is on the list. We can all come up with examples. People put them in movies because they're the person they imagine when they imagine the character, mostly because of their attractiveness and cachet giving them real estate in the brains of producers.

      On the other hand, these people gained their position for a reason and it's never JUST appearance. Generally speaking they have some sort of gravitas that lets you take them seriously even when they're just being themselves. It's a learnable skill but nontrivial.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Did I miss something? Is HP not one book, one movie?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by uncanny · · Score: 1

      What's harry potter? some kind of hirsutism fetish film about someone who makes pottery?

    42. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you understand that naivete is a dangerous trap, and i agree

      but you don't see that an equally dangerous trap is cynicism

      true intelligence straddles the two opposite attitudes

      when i see mindlessly negative cynical comments like yours and others, i am not impressed. i roll my eyes just as much as i do at the hopelessly naive

      because cynicism is just as weak a replacement for intelligence as naivete

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    43. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by chill · · Score: 1

      It is called "rotoscope". Did you not see the original Lord of the Rings animated versions from the 80s?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    44. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I've really enjoyed him in other movies, even non-action ones like the Lake House (if I am remembering the name right).

    45. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not just rotoscoping, they developed a whole new software and technique to do rotoscoping badly. You can get rotoscoping with an effect today. What they did was develop software that let them manually overdraw the video with vector shapes and then move them around easily. There is no edge detection or anything else and the look was deliberately cultivated to be hard to look at. If it were only done for the suit then it would make sense, but it was done for the whole film and it looks like a video game on acid... last year's video game, even at the time it came out. Now sure, originally rotoscoping was done manually, but the point was to actually draw somewhat precisely over what you were seeing so that you had something that looked like the original. This is something different in that it is designed to obscure the shape of the original and make it look like an epileptic cartoon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the recent Charles Schwab ads from the same guys? They've actually gotten it to look quite good, now.

    47. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by careysub · · Score: 1

      A Scanner Darkly gave me a headache... I mean seriously, that whole fucking movie was a gimmick...

      To each his own. I found the use of the rotoscope-like effects in A Scanner Darkly, and the somewhat similar (but more embroidered) set of techniques in Waking Life to be brilliant uses of graphics technology that perfectly complemented the subject material. Both movies deal with problems of perception and reality as their theme and plot and the artificial-yet-nearly-true-to-life images are beautiful evocations of that.

      Perhaps you should be a bit more open to things that are a bit different from your ordinary fare.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    48. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by antdude · · Score: 1

      There's a long (9.25 minutes) video interview with Keanu on YouTube -- saw it on VideoSift. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    49. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree that Reeves is very reserved, in many ways, and I approve of the dude, I get the impression he'll be open to Matrix films for as long as he's able to kick dudes. Everything I've read indicates that the trilogy was an unaborted accident, based off the back of a stolen script, and not so premeditated.

      --
      Do you see what I did there?
    50. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by somersault · · Score: 1

      Thanks :) I noticed Henry's Crime in the cinema listings recently but didn't realise he was even in it, let alone wrote/produced it, will have to go see it this week.

      As for him not being sad, it's good if he's not, though he certainly seems quite introspective and thoughtful, and there has been some heavy stuff in his life that would make anyone sad every now and then. Growing up without a dad, best friend dying, baby dying.. a lot of people have to deal with one or two of those things, but not many have to deal with it all. Considering how private he is, I don't think he's likely to talk about such things on a 2 bit news program.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    51. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have counted Rocky either as they were written by Sly as well. Rambo's screen play was written by Sly also, but that's a little different.

      But yes, Keanu is not a sequel whore. I actually would have loved him to do another Constantine; I thought that movie was great!

    52. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      In the first Matrix, he was actually pretty good, the role was simple and within his range.

      He worked very well in the first Matrix *precisely* because he was a relative blank. I mean, ask yourself who Thomas Anderson is, what his motivations are, etc. He was good at being both everyman and iconic.

      He didn't work nearly as well in the sequels because we'd have expected him to become a "real" character then, not the everyman proxy he fulfilled well in the first film.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    53. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's only a problem if he gets dumped into something like "Much Ado About Nothing" and the rest of the cast have done something like it several dozen times. In the right film he works. It's just like Tom Cruise in "Eyes Wide Shut" where he mostly just had to wander around looking stunned.
      To take an old example there's the Goon Show. Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan had a huge range of characters but Harry Secome could only do one. It still worked. They just centred everything around Harry's character and kept it about the same from one show to the next.

    54. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Did I miss something? Is HP not one book, one movie?

      The last book is two movies. But The Hobbit is two movies too.

    55. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by MotorMachineMercenar · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember watching Speed 2, WITH Mr Reeves.

      --
      "We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
    56. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by MotorMachineMercenar · · Score: 1

      "Emphasis mine. He consistently gives away his earnings despite no need to do so, and no need for more publicity. The guy is nothing like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, he is not about the limelight and appearances."

      You do realize Bill Gates is by far THE most generous philanthropist in the history of humanity? It is likely he (or more accurately, his foundation funded by him) will be singlehandedly responsible for eradicating malaria, and contributes more to HIV/AIDS research than most large NATIONS do.

      --
      "We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
    57. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by MotorMachineMercenar · · Score: 1

      Speed 2.

      --
      "We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
    58. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by somersault · · Score: 1

      He also has more money than pretty much anyone else in the world. It's good he's doing those things, but he is very much a businessman, one who created and ran a company using anti-competitive practices and locking people into some really shitty software. I approve of any charity work he does, but I still think he's a douche. And when are that mega-rich, it's easy to give even billions to charity and not feel that your wallet is any lighter.

      I still stand by what I said. If I wanted to be extremely cynical, I could say that Bill Gates needs all the positive publicity, not to mention customers, that he can get.. though I'd hope that he feels rich enough by now and doesn't feel the need to save third world countries just so that he can suck money out of them.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    59. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You could make the case that that's vaguely self serving

      Every action a person takes is self serving.

      For some, its because of greedy and what profit they'll make out of the deal or how it will benefit them later.

      Others do things because it makes them feel good or it doesn't make them feel bad.

      Either way, everything a person does is self serving.

      I'm not trying to be cynical actually, I just think we need to call it like it is and not give him credit just because he's donating money, don't give him credit just because of his actions, but to give him credit for the reason behind his actions. He wants to help his sister, but he's contributing to the cause to help everyone. He appears to be a team player. That is whats important if you want to get right down to whats good for society as a whole. He's not being a Steve Jobs where he pays 50 million to HIS doctors IN SECRET so they can buy him a new liver from some poor kid in china who gives the $200 money to his family after he dies.

      He gives money because he wants his sister to benefit which is entirely different than giving money because its good press and a tax right off.

      I hope he donates the money that finds the solution to his sisters problems and that we all benefit from it, but I certainly wish him no ill will because he's trying to save his sister (AND willing to share that with everyone without expecting to profit). Good luck to his family.

      He's still a douche bag in Bill&Ted and all of the Matrix movies though :)

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    60. Re:Sad Keanu Is Nostalgic by drkim · · Score: 1

      Good point.
      Plus, he gets no tax break on money he gives away to crew members.

  4. Awesome! by Superchip · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been waiting for two more Matrix movies ever since the last one came out in 1999!

    1. Re:Awesome! by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      Damn it, you beat me to it :-) Well played!

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    2. Re:Awesome! by Tr3vin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same here. I've also been waiting on that last season of Lost. I'm sure it will have a thrilling conclusion.

    3. Re:Awesome! by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      IF the 'reality' of the last two movies turns out to be yet another layer of the onion, cool. If not, not so cool.

      The underlying truth of the man-machine war could remain, but the other stupid stuff could be written off as simply being the way a particular simulation was set up.

      Hell - have Neo find out there are a hundred layers of simulation, and you could turn it into a Saturday morning cartoon series where every week he escapes another level.

    4. Re:Awesome! by damien_kane · · Score: 2

      That's the way I saw them anyways.
      Smith never actually broke out of the machine, he just broke out of his chroot jail, into a larger sandbox (which still probably isn't an even miniscule fraction of the whole of the actual machine).

      It's all just tests, with "The Matrix" equating to a MMO version of "Global Thermonuclear War", and the oracle essentially a giant, infinitely more complex WOPR.

      Would you like to play a game?

    5. Re:Awesome! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You see, that's the way I always interpreted it anyways. The "real world" is just a second layer of simulation, the "real people" being just those who have broken out of the original sandbox their running in, but still not on bare hardware. Neo having powers "outside" is a matter of him starting to understand the nature of the second layer and manipulate it in the same fashion. His "death" is as likely a moment of enlightenment and exit to an outermore layer as it is what it appeared.

      In all of this, Neo himself may or may not be actually human, much like everyone else in the simulation.

    6. Re:Awesome! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Left this out, if Neo isn't human, then let's open up the more interesting possible result -- none of them are actually human, but rather simulations of humans. The "best" simulated people are self-aware enough to see the cracks in the simulation and "escape"...to a more elaborate simulation, which takes an understanding that they were in a simulation as a fundamental rule.

    7. Re:Awesome! by delinear · · Score: 1

      It also explains why the machines don't just amputate the arms and legs of every human "battery" that's born. It can't be compassion, I doubt it's medical (if the shock of having sockets hard wired into your body doesn't kill you then that likely won't either) and it seems to be a massive oversight on the part of the machines when you realise they now have a city full of mostly escapees fighting against them.

    8. Re:Awesome! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      It's all just tests, with "The Matrix" equating to a MMO version of "Global Thermonuclear War", and the oracle essentially a giant, infinitely more complex WOPR.

      Would you like to play a game?

      What a strange movie. The only winning move is not to watch.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. I thought the humans won already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the horror...

  6. ObXKCD by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    XKCD says it all. I'm in the rare minority that didn't see the second two movies, but I bet a lot more won't see the next two movies.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:ObXKCD by tgd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IMO, the second two were better than the first.

      I don't know what people were expecting and didn't get from them. I find it as puzzling as the people who complained about Transformers 2. What did they expect from that? It was two hours of robots kicking the crap out of each other.

      Matrix 2 and 3 were what you expected -- special effects, Keanu saying "woah" and pop-philosophy.

      I think the problem is people read way too much into the first one.

    2. Re:ObXKCD by k8to · · Score: 1

      The problem with 2 was that it was _boring_.

      I have no idea about 3 because I refused to go when my dad wanted to go see it. He had fun on his own, though felt it was ridiculous.

      --
      -josh
    3. Re:ObXKCD by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The first one had the bullet-time gimmick, which made it exciting as an action movie. The effects were things we hadn't seen before, even if the plot was a little bit... absent.

      I think the problem is people read way too much into the first one.

      That's because the first one doesn't spoon-feed you everything. Possibly the writers didn't know where they were going, possibly they were time constrained, but the effect was a movie with lots of gaps that you had to fill in with your imagination. This made it good, because generally the stuff people imagined was better than the stuff on the screen.

      The sequels (slowly) told you everything. There was little space left for imagination.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:ObXKCD by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      For the Matrix, my expectations were set by the description of the original as "They wanted to tell a superhero story, and the first movie was setting the stage to explain his powers." And also by the line at the end of the first movie, where Keanu says over the phone something along the lines of "I'm going to show the people what we can do." I went into the second and third expecting more of Keanu being a hero for the people, maybe teaching others how to be elightened and powerful, or fighting more directly with agents. There was far too much action out of the matrix, too much runaround squabbling with other artifacts, and except for the very end where it's agreed the people would be given a choice to leave the matrix, they're basically invisible and unaware of the hero's existence. Maybe I've also lost my tolerance for the "this is all happened before and will happen again" stories (for one thing, if they have several previous recordings of Neo's exact likeness, how come they didn't just eliminate him as a child or young man and get it over with) and the "the only way to end is for good to merge with evil and destroy them both" conclusions. I don't have a strong loathing of the sequels, but I walked away feeling they hadn't tapped the potential given by the first, and threw in a bunch of cliches that dampened the later ones. As for Transformers, since you mentioned that one, I'm about as big a fan as you'll see, and while the second one was acceptable, I honestly think the whole thing would have been more fun if they'd just had robots fighting, and dropped 90% of the lousy plot. The Fallen was unnecessary, the "only a prime can defeat me" prophecy was ridiculous, and robots finding Earth was unlikely enough in the first movie -- having a second instance of the same thing in the second movie (and, apparently, a third instance in the third movie) really seems to be pushing it. I'd have been perfectly content with "robots find Earth once and keep fighting for three movies" as enough of a plot.

    5. Re:ObXKCD by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I tried watching the second one and was literally unable to do it. The problem that people had with the other movies is that the Wachowski brothers grossly misinterpreted what made the original movie work. If you're equating it to pop-philosophy then you've got no basis for assessing the work.

      The original was surprisingly deep as far as films go. The Matrix itself was a MacGuffin to keep the plot going and to establish the motivations and the freaky physics. The mystery and the puzzle about what one was seeing is largely what made the whole thing work.

      The problem with 2 and 3 is that they didn't understand what made the original one work and hence you got that unwatchable dribble in the second movie.

    6. Re:ObXKCD by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      I was expecting it to stay in genre (science fiction), and they went off into fantasy land. I also wanted some of the feeling of discovery of the first, although I recognised that was going to be hard. They also needed to come up with some new action, rather than the same stuff, but fucking hours of it.

    7. Re:ObXKCD by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if the Skids twins (or whatever they were called) wasn't just putting two Jar-Jars into Transformers 2, I don't know how else you'd describe it. Also, my apologies for forgetting Slashdot doesn't save line breaks. That turned into a bit of a wall of text.

    8. Re:ObXKCD by AngelFrog · · Score: 1

      People are sheep. Simple as that. One person starts yelling loud enough and all the little sheeps start following, what ever direction they were going in in the first place. It's easyer than to make up your own opinion. And by seeing all the "metoos" bringing back the same meme over and over again, people around here are not immune. I think as far as special effect "shut your brain down and watch the pretty light show" action flick they were pretty good. If you were expecting life altering philosophical revelations from a movie... get a grip.

    9. Re:ObXKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a lot in the first one, after all it was pure Plato. The first film is a modern retelling of the "Cave" allegory from The Republic, plenty to get your teeth/mind into. The 2nd and 3rd films were however pop-philosophy junk. This was the problem. They should not have been tied to first film but should have been two new films instead.

    10. Re:ObXKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the issue was mostly that people weren't expecting the second coming of Jesus to play a role in it.

    11. Re:ObXKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pop-philosophy, huh? Last I checked, Plato wasn't considered pop.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
      http://www.sparknotes.com/film/matrix/section1.html (halfway down the page)

    12. Re:ObXKCD by lennier · · Score: 1

      Matrix 2 and 3 were what you expected -- special effects, Keanu saying "woah" and pop-philosophy.

      The problem is that that's not what I was expecting.

      The story in Matrix 1 was about transcending grey reality. Matrix 2 and 3 didn't really have a story: or rather, they threw out the obvious next challenge for the hero and replaced it with pointless make-work.

      At the end of the first one, Neo has fully 'woken up'. He's learnen the movie's key lesson: the machine world is not real. What's the obvious next problem? How to wake up everyone else. How to teach them to transcend, without killing them, either by shooting, by Agent takeover, or by Matrix crash. It's a heck of a moral dilemma and would have given him a sensible reason to go back into the Matrix.

      But instead, we have nonsensical quests for 'keymakers' and French nightclub owners, all of which are machine constructs and therefore unreal, deceptive illusions - and the audience knows this, which makes them smarter than Neo. Then he gets into pointless fights with infinite Smiths which save nothing and achieve nothing since he shouldn't even be in the Matrix to start with.

      When your protagonist is doing things the audience knows are dumb, you have a major story problem, and that's when even the cooelst fight gets boring.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    13. Re:ObXKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IMO, the second two were better than the first.

      I don't know what people were expecting and didn't get from them. I find it as puzzling as the people who complained about Transformers 2. What did they expect from that? It was two hours of robots kicking the crap out of each other.

      Matrix 2 and 3 were what you expected -- special effects, Keanu saying "woah" and pop-philosophy.

      I think the problem is people read way too much into the first one.

      I realized the 2nd and 3rd movies were awesome when I stumbled on a website that deconstructed the names/symbolism/purposes of a lot of the characters. Sorry no link. Up till that point I just thought the movies were all excessive fighting. I think what they did was dress up a lot of the heavier elements and themes with fighting so that it wouldn't hit the audience over the head. After re-watching 2 & 3 I realized they were better movies than I gave them credit for.

  7. yawn by alen · · Score: 1

    the first one was cool for the 1990's when computers were still kind of new and the tech was pretty cool. come middle of the next decade they will really have to have a good story to keep people interested. special effects won't do it anymore

    1. Re:yawn by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Computers were not exactly "new" a decade ago. Even as far as movie CG, it was about 25 years old. It was the use of new camera and filming technology and techniques that really set the first Matrix apart - aside from a really great story. What Matrix accomplished was doing something amazing in a post-Jurassic-Park time period, when special effects had finally reached the point where it could realistically accomplish anything and we should have otherwise not have been impressed by anything that we saw, anywhere.

      I could go for more Keanu. I could go for more cyber-punk type of stuff. I just don't see the need to make it more Matrix stuff. Do two or three whole new movies independent of the franchise. They don't need to have anything to do with it. Sometimes it's good enough to just have one singular great self-contained story. Not sequels. Not game DLC. Not prequels. Just more good stories.

      Also, I really just wanted to reply to this whole story with a single post that just said "Whoa....".

    2. Re:yawn by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. This post works better if you ratchet it back to at least 1975, and gets funnier with age too.

    3. Re:yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      special effects won't do it anymore

      *cough* Avatar *cough*

    4. Re:yawn by operagost · · Score: 1

      You sound kind of new.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:yawn by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      >> come middle of the next decade they will really have to have a good story to keep people interested. special effects won't do it anymore

      Absolutely! Just look at Avatar.

    6. Re:yawn by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a movie or two set in the Shadowrun universe. I spent a couple weeks reading all the source books and making characters but could never get enough people committed to playing.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    7. Re:yawn by morcego · · Score: 1

      I could go for more cyber-punk type of stuff.

      ^^^^^^^ THAT!!!!

      Where have all the cyber-punk movies gone ? There is a lot of good materials around, in books and pop culture.

      --
      morcego
    8. Re:yawn by delinear · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm jaded from being around computers so much, but to me Avatar was like a 2 hour long NVidia demo video, sure the SFX were pretty, but nothing I've not seen before and nothing I needed to watch for more than 30 seconds. Now maybe I'm overly cynical, but how long will it take the general populace to catch up with this once they've had the same level of exposure (and let's face it, it's everywhere these days).

    9. Re:yawn by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      the first one was cool for the 1990's when computers were still kind of new

      Bullshit. Computers are even older than I am, and the first CGI in a full length Hollywood movie was in 1982. That's probably before you were even born.

    10. Re:yawn by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe you've hit the peak of shadowrun. The books are interesting fluff-wise and character creation is fun to play around with, but the actual game play is questionable at best. In theory, sure, any P&P RPG can epic and awesome, but in practice shadowrun games always fall short. It's hard to get everyone on the same page as shadowrun tries to incorporate gritty noir with high-powered corporate espionage. Plus half the players can simply to take a break whenever the matrix comes into play. It feels like the books are focused on describing the cyberpunk genre with some game play rules tacked on the side.
      The most hashed out portion of the game mechanics is simply firing a gun, with 15 variables depending on what you bought, how your character is built, the setting of the gun, how you're firing it, along with typical things like cover and visibility.
      The previous versions had an interesting dice system where there was always a chance and you had to make real decisions about when to commit. But it was really rather complicated. So the latest version did away with that, making it more approachable, but more, I dunno, more blah.

      So trust me, unless you've got a group of cyberpunk fans, just let it go.

    11. Re:yawn by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      The special effect were (and still are) awesome in the first movie.. and that in itself was something.. but to their credit, the most astonishing thing was to come up with a "believable" premise in which a person could run, dive off a roof into a small window and kick ass upon landing.. It was a perfect combination of movie magic and a story that could exploit it.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    12. Re:yawn by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I think it all kind of went away with the 1990s. There were almost ten years there where everything was awesomely dark and brooding and foreboding and cybery and gothy and dirty. Think of X-Files (which had plenty of cyber-punk/dark stuff), Millenium, Matrix and so on.

      I always said that after the millennium, things would start to suck. People's pointless fear of the world ending (even if they didn't REALLY think it would) at the end of the millennium provided for a lot of very dark and fatalistic content, which catered to the cyber-punk theme quite a lot.

      Now, it's mostly back to pop-music and shows about singing highschool kids with the occasional middle east terrorist show or movie thrown in.

    13. Re:yawn by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      They don't need to have anything to do with it. Sometimes it's good enough to just have one singular great self-contained story. Not sequels. Not game DLC. Not prequels. Just more good stories.

      You mean like the Animatrix? They've done it already.

  8. I welcome the chance to fix what screwed up by CodePwned · · Score: 1

    The end of the last matrix was so bad most people pretend it doesn't exist (see Jar Jar). I think they realize everyone was left with a bad taste in their mouth as if they were expecting chocolate and got Mr Hanky.

    1. Re:I welcome the chance to fix what screwed up by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      If you think about it, really, really think about it, Jar Jar wasn't the problem with the prequels. Sure, he was annoying and obviously there for kids but he was just one tiny aspect in an overwhelmingly poor movie. I'd rather not go on because I feel I'm just regurgitating material from this: http://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html

      You'll want to watch the other reviews as well. They're enlightening and funny (if extremely crude at times). If it sounds like I'm doing a plug, well, it sort of is but only because I found the reviews far more entertaining than the movies reviewed and stands up to repeat viewings.

  9. I'm confused by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 0

    If they're making 4 and 5, where are 2 and 3?

  10. Cypher by reitton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surprise, asshole! I bet you never saw this coming, did ya?

    1. Re:Cypher by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I always felt that out of ALL characters in that movie, Cypher was the most intriguing and interesting, and also he probably is the best actor there as well.

    2. Re:Cypher by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Joe Pantoliano does have a certain tendency to be awesome, especially in Wachowski movies.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  11. I got the script for 4 & 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Matrix 4: Scene: City streets

    Neo and gang fight and shoot up the place.

    Hot chick with pushup bra kisses Neo, Trinity looks disgusted.

    More fighting and shooting.

    Matrix 5: Scene: City streets

    Neo and gang fight and shoot up the place.

    Hot chick with pushup bra kisses Neo, Trinity looks disgusted.

    More fighting and shooting.

    1. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Matrix 4: Scene: Suburbia
      Neo and gang mow lawns and clean pools.
      Hot chick with pushup bra babysits for Neo, Trinity looks disgusted.
      More mall shopping.

      Matrix 5: Scene: Rural Farm
      Neo and gang plant corn.
      Hot chick with pushup bra milks a cow, Trinity looks disgusted.
      More square dancing.

    2. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      You KNOW Jar Jar Binks will be in there somewhere.

      Otherwise, they'd ruin a perfectly good trilogy.

    3. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by Combatso · · Score: 5, Funny

      Matrix 4: Morpheus comes to Neo and Trinity, must take them to the future, something has to be done about their kids.
      Matrix 5: Nebuchadnezzar struck by lightening, taken back to 1885, Neo must travel back in time to rescue Morpheus

    4. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Neo clicks on a cow.

    5. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Matrix 4: Scene: Spongebob's Pineapple
      Neo and gang eat Spongebob's pineapple.
      Hot chick disgusted that pushup bra is covered in sea water, Trinity mildly amused.
      More pineapple eating.

      Matrix 5: Scene: Poseidon's lair.
      Neo and gang getting chewed out for monching down on Spongebob's house, Hot chick in push up bra is spared the verbal and instead invited inside his cave for coffee. You know, the coffee that you never actually get to drink, as it's not actually coffee, but we don't know what it actually is because nobody asks anyone in for coffee meaning not coffee as this isn't some 90's sitcom, or it's just us who don't get invited in for coffee as we're nerds who need to leave mom's basement in order to be invited in for coffee. As long as it's no by your mom, who notices you're not in the basement.

      More disgust.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matrix 4: Scene: City streets

      Neo and gang fight and shoot up the place.

      Hot chick with pushup bra kisses Neo, Trinity looks disgusted.

      More fighting and shooting.

      Matrix 5: Scene: City streets

      Neo and gang fight and shoot up the place.

      Hot chick with pushup bra kisses Neo, Trinity looks disgusted.

      More fighting and shooting.

      Why would Trinity be there when she was KILLED?!? Anyway, although the next two will probably be, as best, as good as the last two I will go ans see them just for curiosity-sake.

    7. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by weicco · · Score: 1

      Surprise element: Hot chick with pushup bra doesn't kiss Neo but Trinity! Neo looks to join in.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    8. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made me laugh

    9. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Why would Trinity be there when she was KILLED?!?

      They had a backup copy of her.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by lennier · · Score: 1

      Neo clicks on a cow.

      What is Farmville? Farmville is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the moooth.

      Click on the blue cow, and you wake up in your own barn.

      Click on the red cow, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

      Hint: it involves real rabbits.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    11. Re:I got the script for 4 & 5 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered a career in destroying lives on planets by inducing constant non-stop hysterical laughter?

  12. Didn't he die at the end of 3? by Burnhard · · Score: 2

    ... or perhaps I was watching a different movie....

    1. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0

      They made more than one?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Didn't he die at the end of 3?

      Yes, but the art of crappy sequels is beating a dead horse.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or perhaps I was watching a different movie....

      He became part of the Matrix. Prepare to see a Neo "program" or some other construct for Canoe Reeves to get a roll and his $20 million.

    4. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but the machines never gave his body back to the humans. This was somewhat explored in the short-lived MMO, I get the feeling if there are more movies they will build on this fact.

    5. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by nibbles2004 · · Score: 3, Informative

      peope forget at the end the little girl asked the oracle if they would see neo again, and she said maybe or something like that. There always the possibility his body died, but his conscious went back into the matrix.

    6. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never died. It was implied that he had died though.
      He could have easily just fell unconscious from having to deal with eradicating Smiths code.
      But because he was the core of the anomaly, he was able to survive. (in the same sense of matter / anti matter imbalance)

      And we still have the whole deal of there perhaps being a second layer of the Matrix that makes them think they are actually free, so stop resisting the reality.
      Perhaps this is where he will find out about it.

      Who knows. I'm sort of middle ground with it. I kind of want to know what happens, but they could screw it up majorly and ruin the ending.
      Then i will have to block out another movie from memory.

    7. Re:Didn't he die at the end of 3? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Well, Spock died at the end of Star Trek II, didn't he? Dying is no problem in science fiction.

  13. Obligatory XKCD comic by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1, Informative
  14. Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Matrix 1 was a revolution. Bullet time was new and exciting, the whole "green rayban tint" throughout the movie gave it an eerie air (seriously, put on Raybans in the night, presto Matrix feeling), mix in hacker and kung-fu elements and presto instant geek movie.

    The second was a weak copy (seriously, the alleged original script was better). The third was ... let's not talk about it, ok?

    If they want to be revolutionary again, it has to offer more than "IN THREE DEE". This feature got very stale very fast, being too overused already after not even two years of existence.

    Also, how do you want to continue this story? The rise of the machines again? Or are we going to get a moral story about how humans and machines should coexist, even more of a snorer than the third?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      The only possible way I can see for them to release more Matrix movies is to do prequels. I am not saying that is a good idea -- it was pretty bad for Star Wars -- but that is the only thing that will make sense.

      Not that making more Matrix movies can really make sense in any universe...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Also, how do you want to continue this story?

      I just hope they don't make a prequel.. I really hate those. Or cover some time period that was glanced over (I hate those too). Stories have a start and end. Going back and telling some part of it in the middle or before the origional start always feels weird, and in the worst cases can wreck the original story.

      The fact that Neo kinda like.. dies.. at the end of the third one kind of limits the possibilities of the character. They can always do the lame "he wasn't really dead" thing.. but people hate that.

    3. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      The second was a weak copy (seriously, the alleged original script was better). The third was ... let's not talk about it, ok?

      I think I would have actually been totally OK with the second movie if the third had actually gone anywhere meaningful with the story. The wild speculation after the end of the 2nd movie of layered virtual worlds as seen in "The Thirteenth Floor" had me somewhat hopeful. Still felt like the series could go somewhere exciting before the 3rd movie sunk it completely.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    4. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This feature got very stale very fast, being too overused already after not even two years of existence.

      Maybe not in its current incarnation, but 3D for movies been around for decades. I've seen Vincent Price films from the 50s that were in 3D. It has always been a gimmick, and it has always faded back into the "don't care" category. I will never pay to see another 3D film again -- the eye strain isn't worth it.

      And, I tend to agree about Matrix 4 and 5 ... what's left to cover? They were inside of another Matrix and haven't really gotten anywhere yet? Or they're all back at the rave and someone slips Neo a roofie?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know why studios love 3D? Because it is impossible to pirate while it is in the theatre. It gives them a larger window of exclusivity. It is an incidental form of DRM.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by nibbles2004 · · Score: 1

      i cant wait for the Rave scene again, coz the 1st one was so great

    7. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by k_187 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And that makes no sense as none of the new 3D movies have been released exclusively in 3D. (Not every theater has all that new fangled technology, but I'm more than willing to admit that I may be wrong.)

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    8. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      +1 on that.

      #2 still holds up pretty well as an action movie. The whole problem is that the story seems like it's going somewhere cool and then... doesn't in #3.

    9. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, how do you want to continue this story?

      It takes place in Russia, because as you can see, Mr. Anderson, in Soviet Russia, the Matrix Sequels have you!

    10. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do what all of these other lazy filmmakers are doing and make a reboot. The Matrix: Rebooted, that could work.

    11. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by BiggoronSword · · Score: 1

      Two cameras. Polarized filter over lenses. Tada! DRM circumvented.

      --
      interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
    12. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You mean like a "It was all a second layer to the simulation, and Neo transcended rather than died, exiting to whatever is outside that second layer of simulation? Would make what happened in the last two make a hell of a lot more sense -- remember he "died" before he transcended the first Matrix entirely.

    13. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You know why studios love 3D? Because it is impossible to pirate while it is in the theatre.

      Two synched camcorders, hacked-up pair of 3D glasses over the lens. Job done.

      Of course who in their right mind really wants to watch a pirate copy of a movie that was recorded on a camcorder in a cinema? I remember years ago a friend had a camcorder copy of Lord of the Rings before it was released in the UK, and it was barely watchable; I'm glad I waited for the DVD.

      Then again, the Matrix sequels might actually be improved if you could barely see what was going on or hear the dialogue... particularly with a big enough audience making fun of them.

    14. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. Many theaters are not fully equipped for 3D. However, any movie that is released in 3D is becoming increasingly difficult to see in 2D, because a lot of theaters are upgrading one or two rooms to 3D and showing the 3D-available titles in 3D only.

      The new "Tron", for example, is showing in only one theater in my area in 2D, and they weren't running it a lot because they are trying to compete with the 3D theaters and that's what everyone seems to want to see. Everyone else has at least one room for 3D, and that's where "Tron" is showing.

      I've got a kid and very few babysitting opportunities. The one showing of "Tron" in 2D that we could have made it to was captioned for the deaf with "interpretive audio" for the blind. Having someone describing what was happening on screen while having captions cover it up was rather unappealing to me, though I think it's great that such things are available for the blind and deaf.

      So we saw "True Grit" instead. Great movie, by the way. I'm not really into westerns, but this one was surprisingly enjoyable.

      Maybe I'll catch "Tron" when it comes out on rental. Or maybe not. It's more of a "theater" movie, I suspect.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    15. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bs. slap a polarized filter in front of the camera. next!

    16. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by fredrik70 · · Score: 2

      rubbish jsu tadd a polarized lense over the lense and you are good to go for 2D, others here mentioned using 2 cameras, suppose that works as well, but weems like a lot of work

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    17. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Depends on where it's filmed. One of my parents' friends worked in Saudi Arabia for a bit. Apparently they had a row of tripods in the cinemas there. For less than the cost of watching the film, you could set up your camcorder (audio feed was connected directly) at the start of the film and collect it at the end. The quality wasn't much worse than normal VHS (this was back in the early '90s).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought most real pirates don't even need a boot-leg camcorder thanks to conversion tools, resulting in perfect copies. If 3D is a trick of light, it won't be long before some researcher finds a numeric depolarization method to split the images. After that, nobody bothers to pirate two component-images-per-fps and sells you the resulting 2D movie.

    19. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matrix 1 was a revolution. Bullet time was new and exciting, the whole "green rayban tint" throughout the movie gave it an eerie air (seriously, put on Raybans in the night, presto Matrix feeling), mix in hacker and kung-fu elements and presto instant geek movie.

      The second was a weak copy (seriously, the alleged original script was better). The third was ... let's not talk about it, ok?

      If they want to be revolutionary again, it has to offer more than "IN THREE DEE". This feature got very stale very fast, being too overused already after not even two years of existence.

      Also, how do you want to continue this story? The rise of the machines again? Or are we going to get a moral story about how humans and machines should coexist, even more of a snorer than the third?

      Actually, the green tint was added to distinguish the Matrix from the "real world" in the second and third movies. When the first was re-released, they edited it so that it fit the theme of the the other two movies.

    20. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      You DO know the green tint in the matrix/blue tint in real world was only thought up in the second movie, and retroactively applied to the first?

    21. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this true, just put one side of the glasses over the camera lens?

    22. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love 3D because it means I have absolutely no desire to see it in the theater, so I'm not tempted to waste $12 on a ticket.

      Instead, I'll just wait for it to appear on Netflix, and then I'll watch it in 2D on my TV for $2. ;)

      3D saves me $10/movie! :-D

    23. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible? I think not. Many 3D theaters use circular polarization. It's quite easy to pick up a circular polarizing filter for any 2D camera. It would even be possible to record the output in 3D, given a 3D camera, a used pair of 3d glasses and some ingenuity (read: duct tape).

    24. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      Well THIS one's easy. just get a

      1) styrofoam human head, put lil cameras in the foam where the eyes are, and place a set of the polarized glasses on it.

      2)Recreate the 3d for the viewer (a very small and short project) who needs two LED video projectors (700 dollars, less then an LCD tv and bigger) with keystoning support ( or preferably baked into software that offers two-stream mpeg decoding, one stream to each of two monitors hooked up to an HTPC)

      and 3) another pair of glasses at home to send the light of each projector through again, with a final pair for the person or two watching from the 'sweet spot'.

      easy :)

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    25. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by nomel · · Score: 1

      Worse yet...have a set of friends, each with a tape recorder near each speaker...use some shitty time delay noise cancellation algorithm...3d with surround sound! BAM! With movie staff using night vision, the only thing that remains is to find someone with a glass eye to stick the camcorders in...

    26. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Sention · · Score: 1

      Studios love 3D because they can charge 150% of normal ticket prices. Studios also need to innovate something to get people back in the theaters. It's much cheaper for the consumer to invest in a 50" HDTV (which they'll use for TV and games anyway). Then wait for the sheep to ... pay $15-10 per person + $8 Coke + $10 popcorn, wait in line to get a decent seat, and hope there are no inconsiderate people talking or throwing popcorn. Read reviews from the sheep (not paid critics), wait a few months for the DVD, bluray release or a netflix stream. Then watch in the comfort of your own home have have a nice home cooked meal or a $5 pizza! I admit that I am one of those sheep occasionally, but I wait for films that I know I'll like, and I don't buy the popcorn.

    27. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by nomel · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for someone to install an inconspicuous, low divide ratio, beam splitter in front of the projection window, all aimed into a cheapish hd camcorder. If people can build replica atm front panels...I doubt installing a nice looking box under the window would be a problem.

    28. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by hb79 · · Score: 1

      > Or are we going to get a moral story about how humans and machines should coexist.

      That's it. Bush was right: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

      Fool me once, or twice, or, ehmm... Matrix? Fish?

    29. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      guess you haven't seen any of the rips of 3d movies....cough Jackass 3d cough..... yeah the rip is kinda funky looking, but people are most definitely pirating it!

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    30. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by noidentity · · Score: 1

      You know why studios love 3D? Because it is impossible to pirate while it is in the theatre. It gives them a larger window of exclusivity. It is an incidental form of DRM.

      And like DRM, 3D makes paying customers suffer.

    31. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Only if you sit too close to the screen. Generally, for 3d, you want to sit no closer than halfway back, or else your eyes will often be forced into divergence to merge the two images into one, which is what causes the headaches associated with 3d.

    32. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't know, the last time I brought a human head into the theater they evacuated the place. I had to escape through a fire door and a roof.

      What's with 'styrofoam' though?

    33. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Or you can just buy yourself an ol' T-800 and tell it to suit through the film and record it...

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    34. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Seriously?? How often does the illicit camera pirate happen these days, when someone can leak the whole film to BitTorrent-- or someone posts the DVD/Blu-ray rip? Isn't this another example of Hollywood studios claiming billions in losses because every eyeball seeing the movie for free costs them $2000 using their marketers' and lawyers' fuzzy math?

      Filmmakers love 3D because it means new toys. Studios and theaters love it because they get to charge the customers more. It's cheaper now than when it was first introduced, so they'll make billions on this new technology without ever improving on the screenplay or cinematography, both of which has essentially stagnated for the last few decades (sure, some blockbusters rocked the world with innovation, but then the rest of the industry tries to duplicate the blockbusters).

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    35. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. Put one lens of the glasses over the lens of the camera. Sure, it only gets what one eye would see -and thus no depth- but it works perfectly.

    36. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You do know that by the time a DVD is produced and ripped, the film has already been pirated a million times or more, right?

      And to everyone else, while it is TECHNICALLY possible to use special glasses to film, or do other tricks, the fact remains that it generally ISN'T being done, and 3D movies ONE AVERAGE are released into the scene later than 2D only movies, which means it works for the studios. Jeez....

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    37. Re:Folks? Get the clue, it's over. by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      The "professional" camcorder copies of movies are created by the projectionist. They'll put a high-quality camera up next to the projector (so, no distortion) and will connect the projector's monitor audio out to the camera's audio in (so, high-quality stereo sound). The result isn't as good as a professionally-produced DVD, but it's far better than most camcorder copies.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  15. They didn't kill the idea badly enough with #3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Auuugh - if they want to "revolutionize" action movies again they'd better start with an idea as new and creative as the original Matrix movie. Flogging a horse they've already shot doesn't sound at all promising.

    The second movie wasted way too much time in Zion but definitely had it's interesting bits, particularly the implications of the Architect's revelations and "impossible" events in the "real" world at the end, but they utterly scrapped all the interesting possibilities for nonsensical weirdness and pseudoreligion in the third (which had very little to redeem it that I can recall). If 4 and 5 are 3 all over again or worse...

  16. Uh oh by mvar · · Score: 1

    More love drama and "talk philosophical nonsense so that you sound cool" on the way

  17. No need for sequels by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

    The Matrix (1999) Told the story they wanted to tell. Sure we got a couple of videogames and animations out of it, but the main story is done. The savior is ready, the vitual world is well on its way to salvation. Adding up to this would only involve an invincible character, which is kind of hard to relate to. I say the Wachowski broth^H^H^H^H^H^Hs stick to making box office bombs, and stay away from the only thing they ever managed to get right at least until studios stop giving them money.

  18. Thank god by mesanchez · · Score: 0

    i just saw the first one...

  19. In other news.... by Orleron · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....George Lucas is adopting the Wachowski brothers.

    1. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the brothers became a sister, bytheway.

    2. Re:In other news.... by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      Greaaaattt. Might as well get prepared now...
      NEO SHOT FIRST! (in the lobby scene!)

  20. 2012 by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    It can't come soon enough.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:2012 by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the sequel 2013!

  21. Sequels not that bad by TheLink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't see the sequels as bad or stupid.

    The idea that the machines want humans as batteries is just what Morpheus claimed. It may be true in the inner Matrix world, but may not be for the outer matrix worlds. Remember even in the first movie the question was asked: "What if when you woke up, you didn't know the difference between the dream world, and the real world?"

    So my interpretation is the Oracle is trying to upgrade herself- she believes humans have something the machines don't. Think of the whole thing as a "hybrid/breeding program".

    Neo is likely at least partly a machine[1] (and a special one). The Oracle gives Neo cookies to add features/upgrades at critical moments.

    After each world iteration (you can see the previous Neos try and fail etc), Neo has a chance of becoming more human but crucially retaining the abilities of machines. Smith goes about merging with all the humans and other machines, including the Oracle (who still _somehow_ retains enough of herself to prompt Neo), and Neo merges with Smith.

    If things go fine, the Oracle gets her upgrade... If things go wrong, as the Architect said, the Oracle is playing a dangerous game.

    As you can see, there's still plenty of room for reasonable interpretations.

    Of course the upcoming sequels could prove that it really was stupid ;).

    [1] FWIW, in the first movie the humans themselves mention "he's a machine" they weren't serious of course, but the film writers might be dropping hints.

    --
    1. Re:Sequels not that bad by Aerynvala · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't need my stories handed to me on a silver platter, but the level of alternate meaning you're suggesting would require far more obvious clues to be believable for me.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    2. Re:Sequels not that bad by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, if we could just get them to hire you to write it, I'd be more optimistic. Whoever wrote 2&3 should under no account be allowed to write 4 & 5.

      Just my $0.02 worth

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    3. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked the sequels for what they were also, action flicks. The Matrix Reloaded, in particular, had some truly awesome fight sequences. I never did find any of the story elements in The Matrix to be very interesting or compelling, so a shift towards more action scenes was welcome.

    4. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 and 3 were really one movie. People seem to miss the 'to be continued' at the end of 2.

      If they lost about 2.5 hours of that movie(s) it would have been bad ass. Their egos were too big for it so it is long and boring. It could have had a bunch of energy.

      They really should have just put all of that extra fluff in the dvd extras special longer version.

      15 mins of people dancing right in the middle of it? Really? 20 mins of them standing on top of a trailer? Really? I remember sitting in the theater people were looking at each other like 'am I the only one who thinks this is boring crap?'

      They really needed an editor who was willing to stand down the directors and make it a good movie.

      If I watch them as 1 movie and ff thru the boring bits the last '2' are semi ok.

      That movie died on the editing room floor. It was boring because they made 2 movies out of one.

      Like your theory. I like the computer in a computer one better and they are all human. But that one is cool too.

    5. Re:Sequels not that bad by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the end of Matrix 2, I honestly thought we were seeing "hey dummy, they're still in the matrix, they're just fooled into thinking they are out so that they'll stop resisting."

      After all, Neo's "I can alter the Matrix" powers make sense in the matrix, but there's no rational basis whatsoever for him being fucking telekinetic in the real world. Therefore, as I saw it, the easiest explanation was just that he was starting to get a sense of the second matrix layer and play with it when he made all the squidbots explode.

      After all, that makes more logical sense (at least according to the previously relatively internally-consistent rules as established in the movies till that point) than "Neo is fucking jesus, the chosen one gets to have powers in the real world too, he's going to blow up in a cross shape, fuck you", which is what they did with the third movie.

    6. Re:Sequels not that bad by geekpowa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great comment. Everyone loves to hate 2 & 3. Thought I was alone in liking the entire series.

      2 was rich, complex and nuanced. After 1 my thinking was, Neo is now a bad-ass, the Matrix is now understood and mastered, what can possibly happen in 2? Alot happens; the world turns out to be substantially more complex and nuanced, with many complex and powerful antagonists and friendlies and uncertainty as to whom are who. The matrix world in 2 I found to be far more frightening and intimidating place than in the first film.

      3 is a weak film, mainly because it takes 45mins of story and plot and tries to stretch it into a feature length film. Definitely a sin which weakens the film, but the plot is still sound and interesting.

    7. Re:Sequels not that bad by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Neo is likely at least partly a machine

      That's all fine, but am I the only one who had hoped the next movie by the Wachowski brothers would be a documentary about their personal lives?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Sequels not that bad by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I don't need my stories handed to me on a silver platter, but the level of alternate meaning you're suggesting would require far more obvious clues to be believable for me.

      The fact that there have literally been hundreds of Neos is enough to convince anyone.

    9. Re:Sequels not that bad by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      I would heartily welcome it.

      This would turn the Matrix series into something like Fight Club- where the true genius of it can only be realized after you watch it in its entirety and then re-watch it.

      If done right, they might actually be able to salvage some of the second and third movies. I have my doubts, but as a big fan of the first I'm not so spiteful that I don't want to see the series make sense.

    10. Re:Sequels not that bad by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      Funny, I came up with a similar plot line after the actual movies disappointed me. I figured that Smith was the first real attempt by the Oracle to make an AI with the powers of "The One". He is much more emotional than the other agents in the Matrix and calls the Oracle mother, but is obviously a failure. Anyhow, after failing in the pure AI rout, they make Neo. He is of course a success, but they need to bring him in before they can take advantage of his powers.

      Oh well, that was all before he got sith lightning. Then it is just nonsense.

    11. Re:Sequels not that bad by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2

      There it is again: evidence that just about every fan-fiction explanation of the Matrix universe is better than what the Wachowskis threw up on film in the two sequels.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    12. Re:Sequels not that bad by Aerynvala · · Score: 2

      Except obviously that isn't true or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm not saying that it wasn't the intent of the filmmakers. I'm saying that what I saw on the screen does not lend itself to that explanation without a certain amount of filling in the blanks by the viewer. And that amount is too high for me to buy that explanation based solely on what I saw in the films themselves.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    13. Re:Sequels not that bad by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Your comment just reminded me why I hated the sequels. Too much of this universe was too quickly explained. The movie went from this mysterious cyberpunk tale to a poor man's Tron with various programs giving exposition and destroying any mystery or wonder in the films. Note to filmmakers, stop explaining everything away. Leave some room for the imagination. Don't make sequels if the story is more or less done.

    14. Re:Sequels not that bad by LongearedBat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also thought it was obvious that Neo dicovered he was in another layer. The Architect said there were 7 attempts to curb humans. I interpeted that that as saying that there were 7 layers. That being reason enough for Neo to accept human defeat and allow the Archtect to create the peaceful sunny layer at the end of the 3rd movie. It also seemed as though the Archtect used Neo to learn how to better create that next layer, and probably even had a hand in creating Neo for that purpose.

    15. Re:Sequels not that bad by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Neo, presented as a biological human, can disable machines via stressing muscles in his hand and face. Numerous times.

      If that's not enough - he can be in the Matrix (or close - the "subway station") while apparently not connected.

      Seriously, what more suggestions do we need that there might be something very wrong with "official" explanation?

      (personally, my favorite alternative would be: humans have won the war / initial nuclear attack on Zero 1, and resulting EMP, was successful in disabling the machines ... but we depended on / came to value their technology too much, so we built them a "prison for the mind" - and what would be a better way than convincing them they are humans? It's just a matter of software / we have seen something close in one Animatrix. Plus - the most two human characters in whole trilogy were the "ubermaintainers" of Matrix!)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    16. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see the sequels as bad or stupid.

      The idea that the machines want humans as batteries is just what Morpheus claimed. It may be true in the inner Matrix world, but may not be for the outer matrix worlds. Remember even in the first movie the question was asked: "What if when you woke up, you didn't know the difference between the dream world, and the real world?"

      So my interpretation is the Oracle is trying to upgrade herself- she believes humans have something the machines don't. Think of the whole thing as a "hybrid/breeding program".

      Neo is likely at least partly a machine[1] (and a special one). The Oracle gives Neo cookies to add features/upgrades at critical moments.

      After each world iteration (you can see the previous Neos try and fail etc), Neo has a chance of becoming more human but crucially retaining the abilities of machines. Smith goes about merging with all the humans and other machines, including the Oracle (who still _somehow_ retains enough of herself to prompt Neo), and Neo merges with Smith.

      If things go fine, the Oracle gets her upgrade... If things go wrong, as the Architect said, the Oracle is playing a dangerous game.

      As you can see, there's still plenty of room for reasonable interpretations.

      Of course the upcoming sequels could prove that it really was stupid ;).

      [1] FWIW, in the first movie the humans themselves mention "he's a machine" they weren't serious of course, but the film writers might be dropping hints.

      oracle got her upgrade, it bought sun

    17. Re:Sequels not that bad by RulerOf · · Score: 2

      The fact that there have literally been hundreds of Neos is enough to convince anyone.

      Nah, the Architect said something about "This will be the Nth time we've destroyed [Zion.]" It was a single digit number, something like 4, 6, or 7.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    18. Re:Sequels not that bad by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Write it? It would be crap too - I suck. Story ideas and concepts are dime a dozen, I'm crap at dialogue and the flowery stuff - and that's actually the important bit - otherwise books and movies would just be very short and not be engrossing/captivating.

      Here's "yet another matrix-like story":

      You could have the humans actually being in suspended animation and on a journey to some distant place, and something went wrong (place not suitable?) and the AIs in charge of the fleet have gone to "Plan B" (look for another place), and the original humans actually have died. There's still a limit to how long you can last deep frozen, and one of the techniques to keep minds alive for longer is to hook them to virtual worlds which are run by the computers. Since the minds are in suspended animation (and thus very very slow), the computers can keep up with the simulation. After many generations of humans (and damage to the fleet in accidents ), the humans mostly forget about the truth.

      And of course the heroine/hero (and various notable people in history) figure out some of the "admin/power user" features in the simulation, and that's where the magic/superhuman stuff comes in.

      Then you have the other parties (including some of the bad guys) the AIs (angels, daemons) in the simulation itself (not the same as the ones "outside" which don't have personality etc). Add some plot-lines, love interest, back story etc, e.g. one of the bad guys getting "account locked out" of the World by getting tricked into trying to get more "admin rights" with the wrong "password+gesture+thoughtmacro" too many times.

      Then the finale could be the heroine/hero saves the day at the last moment by actually waking up. Turns out the Evil AI just isn't as fast in "real time" (which is why the Evil AI wants to pull the plug on "unnecessary resources" so that the Evil AI can have enough compute resources to be "real time"), and the simulated world is slow, so there's enough time to save the day ;).

      OK so that sucks. Might be OK as a B movie (B= add lots of Beer ;) ).

      --
    19. Re:Sequels not that bad by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Onion layering is somewhat unattractive as a plot device though - once you introduce it, there are no real limits to the number of layers...

      Plus there are much more dramatic twists possible - for example "machines didn't win the war / it is they who are 'enslaved'"

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    20. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a couple of new movies explaining it.

    21. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see the sequels as bad or stupid.

      The idea that the machines want humans as batteries is just what Morpheus claimed.

      In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

      The idea that the machines want humans as batteries is ridiculous. So the atmosphere is somehow ruined - is there no more coal, oil, uranium, geothermal, or other power sources left on the Earth? All would be better power sources than humans.

      A better plot would have been that the machines are trying to save humanity from destroying itself, and the only way to save the species is to keep them inert but with their minds alive. Then you could have had a very interesting question of whether it is better to be free and dangerous or controlled but in paradise, aka The Truman Show.

    22. Re:Sequels not that bad by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      That would explain some of Keanu's acting as being a machine pretending to be human.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    23. Re:Sequels not that bad by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Uhhh... Yeah. They did this in the 1980's with an entire season of Dallas.

      I would hunt down and publicly execute the Wachowski brothers^h and sister if they did this.

      Note to lawyers: This is not a serious threat on anybody's life, I hold no ill-will towards the Wachowski's, it's just a joke. Just a terrible, terrible joke.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    24. Re:Sequels not that bad by Antity-H · · Score: 1

      You disliked ExistenZ, Primer and Inception then ...

    25. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    26. Re:Sequels not that bad by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't see the sequels as bad or stupid.

      A lot of people actually don't outside the nerdverse. They were just big, dumb sci-fi action flicks and worked on that level. It's just become one of those geekdom memes. You must hate the two Matrix sequels to the point of comparing them to torture like the OP did. You must hate season 5 of Babylon 5. Any show that includes human interest and drama to science fiction must be derided as a soap opera. And so on. It goes the other way, too. You must worship Joss Whedon, for example, and continue to quote Monty Python forever. Yeah, it's tiresome. Personally, I liked Reloaded, but was "meh" about Revolutions. I was hoping for the nested multiple Matrix like a lot of others.

    27. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to think that it's a computer within a computer, too. And at the very end the world blinks out of existence as we find it's nothing more than Wall-E's screensaver running a basic "Life" type of program. In 3D.

    28. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... just no. You're inventing a new plot to desperately try and explain away how terrible the second and third movies were. This wasn't the plot of them, it wasn't implied or suggested. This is you grasping at straws to try and prop up your failing faith in these films. Only the first movie was any good, and it wasn't good because of the plot. If any thought is applied to the plot, it falls apart instantly. For instance, a set of machines that don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, and Morpheus claiming the matrix can't be explained, when it could be pretty easily explained in just a few minutes. Maybe he meant the explanations wouldn't be convincing. "Wait, what? Humans as batteries? But keeping us alive would expend far more energy than was ever stored. They're machines, why couldn't they just go dormant till the clouds cleared?" etc etc etc. Not to mention all the philosophical nonsense was stuff you should have learned in junior highschool, and was utterly superfluous, and extolled with far less skill than plenty of other films exploring the same topics. So what does that leave? Kung fu and guns. That's why the first movie was fun. It was well paced, the action sequences were fluid and beautiful. The second and third films forgot this, and had lots of silly, unconvincing CG moments, and filled in all the gaps with pseudo-intellectual wankery. They also got far too self-important, and it just wasn't any fun anymore.

    29. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And besides which, the Smurfs are obviously an egg-laying species and not mammals, I don't care if Papa Smurf has a beard!

    30. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical. then be forwarned and stay away from anime, japanese live-action or anything foreign.

    31. Re:Sequels not that bad by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The really depressing thing about that is that the earlier script drafts had the humans' brains being used as a parallel computing engine for running AIs. They switched to the nonsensical power idea because they didn't think that people would understand it. Of course, the 'combined with a kind of fusion' line made it seem even more bizarre, like someone saying 'combined with standing an an 747, flapping your arms will let you fly across the atlantic'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Sequels not that bad by ammorais · · Score: 1

      Yea! One of the things I loved about the first movie was that it was flawless about the logic. There was an absolutely logic explanation to why we see people jumping between impossible building gaps, and disappear in phone bots.
      That was completely ruined at the end of the second movie with the telekinetic stuff, so unless they justify that with some-kind of a multilevel depth of matrixes, the next movies can't be nothing more than entertainment to me .

    33. Re:Sequels not that bad by sznupi · · Score: 1

      In eXistenZ this trick goes just as far as it should, no further. Onion layering itself forms the punchline of whole movie, is what it is about. Primer has something different in character, one fluid reality.

      How the protagonists are, for example, mostly machines would be an interesting twist to watch after all those years OTOH, and seems to be quite coherent explanation for many things: Neo powers in "real" world, how he can have "wireless" connection with the Matrix, bleeding after fall in virtual world / "the body cannot live without the mind" (I assume it's not something analogous to Star Trek control panels directly connected to plasma conduits, done on purpose... I "died" many times in my dreams - fallen, run over, shot at, eaten, blown up, drawn, exposed to space - and while it usually wasn't particularly pleasant at the time, I'm still here) - forcibly unplugging should result in heavy hangover at worst.

      ...unless you're a machine. And you "body" (if there even is such a thing) can get easily confused while presented with convincing stimulus (effects of which are largely simulated in the first place)

      Nvm such basics as why the machines haven't left the Earth almost immediately? (it's also safe to assume Wachowski brothers know that humans are not perpetuum mobile)

      Plus Zion and Zero 1 sound awfully similar.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    34. Re:Sequels not that bad by DudemanX · · Score: 0

      Not only were the sequels not that bad but the first one wasn't that good.

      When someone first told me about The Matrix I was like "yeah the previews look retarded" and my friend was like "It was a fun action movie with some cool effects and techno music" and he was right because that's all it was. It wasn't this thought provoking masterpiece of film making that most people make it out to be. It was just a decent sci-fi action movie that ranks somewhere below Predator and Highlander yet above Predator 2.

    35. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle took over Sun. Does it counts as an upgrade TheLink (how appropriate) was talking about?

      Posting AC to NOT meet the White Rabbi.

    36. Re:Sequels not that bad by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      "the world turns out to be substantially more complex and nuanced" So what happened to Morpheus saying "Neo, you can control anything in here because the Matrix is just a computer program"? Suddenly and without explanation he can control things in the real world too.

    37. Re:Sequels not that bad by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      6th, IIRC

    38. Re:Sequels not that bad by Pirate_Pettit · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, mostly. 2+3 could have been condensed into one, which would have made for a tighter film (why aim for the magic trilogy?), and there was a lot more straightforward sci-fi in them, but I thought they were enjoyable and well made, if a bit less groundbreaking.

      Oh, wait, he died in the third film, I just remembered. so wtf?

    39. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all your talk of rationality, I think it's time for you to crack open some philosophy books.
      You may get a new appreciation of the first movie and won't be so surprised by the later ones.

    40. Re:Sequels not that bad by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      eXistenZ and Primer are using the onion layering as a plot device in a manner that would not make sense in The Matrix.

      And story-wise, Inception isn't half of what it's cracked up to be. You slashdot'ers are supposed to be bright - are there ACTUALLY anyone here who thought that movie was hard to understand? They explain EVERYTHING as it happens. Claiming that the movie is brilliant, just cause the closing scene leaves you with 2 possible interpretations is weak. It was a pretty good action movie, but they definitely could've exploited the whole dream-world theme a bit more than a folding city, a single ultra-slow-motion scene, and a single anti-gravity scene.

      Onion layering would not make sense in The Matrix, because it's too obvious. I bet some 70% of all the people who saw Matrix considered the option, so the obvious problem is: why wouldn't the people who were woken up consider this option? If the machines are able to prevent humans from waking up, onion layering would not be neccesary. If they're not able to prevent people from waking up, people who had already woken up from the inner layer would be that much more well suited to wake up again and again and again, and assuming there was such a thing as a final layer, reaching it would be delayed by an insignificant amount, and any one truly free person could probably penetrate straight down to the innermost layer, and bypass all other layers entirely.

    41. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's matrices all the way down.

    42. Re:Sequels not that bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Suddenly and without explanation he can control things in the real world too.

      The whole point of movies or other stories about alternate realities is that you can't tell when you're in an actual one. There is no reason that the underlying reality can't be another virtual world. Perhaps the underlying world they think is the real one is simply an older revision... or a newer one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Sequels not that bad by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      it's just a joke. Just a terrible, terrible joke.

      That's what they said about the Matrix sequels... you're going to jail, boy.

    44. Re:Sequels not that bad by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      I don't need my stories handed to me on a silver platter, but the level of alternate meaning you're suggesting would require far more obvious clues to be believable for me.

      The paranormal abilities of Neo in the purportedly "real" world (the "non-Matrix") should be a very clear and explicit clue. But for some reason, most of the audience just seems to have rejected that clue. Maybe because Matrix 1 created a universe which was very consistent, and the audience just can't switch away from that.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    45. Re:Sequels not that bad by scottv67 · · Score: 0

      >Nah, the Architect said something about "This will be the Nth time we've destroyed [Zion.]" It was a single digit number, something like 4, 6, or 7.

      "The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it."

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/quotes

    46. Re:Sequels not that bad by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually, thinking about it again now. I can agree with that. It didn't make sense and from that point forward I did have trouble with the films.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    47. Re:Sequels not that bad by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      >Nah, the Architect said something about "This will be the Nth time we've destroyed [Zion.]" It was a single digit number, something like 4, 6, or 7.

      The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/quotes

    48. Re:Sequels not that bad by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Wireless transceivers in addition to all of those plugs in him? Perhaps being "The One" means he has the one on the right frequency.

    49. Re:Sequels not that bad by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      I actually REALLY liked the second one but, even as I left the theater I said, "Well, what I ultimately think about this movie will depend on what they do with the next one..."

      And the 3rd retroactive mangled the 2nd. I didn't like where they took the story and I thought the whole thing was incredibly pretentious.

    50. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its like a taco within a taco within a tacobell inside a KFC inside a mall in your dream!

    51. Re:Sequels not that bad by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      I always imagined a conversation along these lines took place:

      Writer: So the machines harvest people, to tap the potential of the human brain's computational abilities...

      PHB: The compu-what? People won't get that. I know! Let's have them use humans as power sources! The body produces heat, right? People will understand that.

      Writer: Uhhh.... humans don't magically create power out of thin air, they require food... which takes energy to grow... you still need that energy coming from somewhere.

      PHB: Oh fine fine, whatever... throw in some line about using fusion too or something to appease the nitpicking nerd crowd.

      Writer: *sigh*...

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    52. Re:Sequels not that bad by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      I counted 2 as being average, and 3 as being poor, with respect to plot development. (Special effects and action sequences were good in both.) My opinion is that if one were to re-edit the footage for 2 and 3 into a single longer movie, the result would make for a much better sequel to the Matrix.

    53. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am confused. With all this merging, branching and cookie-ing, The Oracle was using git or cvs?

    54. Re:Sequels not that bad by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I love people that aren't inflexible in their thinking.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    55. Re:Sequels not that bad by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      My main reason for disliking 2 & 3 (mostly 3) is that the CGI was just plain BAD. You had other movies coming out at the same time with much better CGI and to have such blatantly fake CGI just killed it for me.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    56. Re:Sequels not that bad by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I don't think Neo was telekinetic in the real world insomuch as he had established a permanent neural connection with the machines, and to a limited extent could control them in ways that might appear telekinetic. I do not recall Neo doing anything in the real world in any movie that would qualify as telekinetic that did not involve one or more machines.

    57. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I liked them all a lot. I was entertained.

    58. Re:Sequels not that bad by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      The really depressing thing about that is that the earlier script drafts had the humans' brains being used as a parallel computing engine for running AIs

      Maybe they were worried about getting slapped with a lawsuit by Dan Simmons.

    59. Re:Sequels not that bad by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      The white rabbi?

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    60. Re:Sequels not that bad by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      And thank you for giving me a new perspective on the films. I didn't want to dislike them, rewatching them with this information should be interesting.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    61. Re:Sequels not that bad by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yes

      Apparently, you are wrong.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    62. Re:Sequels not that bad by geschild · · Score: 1

      I second your motion! All in favour, say 'Aye'. :D

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    63. Re:Sequels not that bad by jaroslaw.fedewicz · · Score: 1

      “Neo, presented as a biological human, can disable machines via stressing muscles in his hand and face. Numerous times.

      “If that's not enough - he can be in the Matrix (or close - the "subway station") while apparently not connected.”

      It was just an upgrade to a wireless broadband connection. With all unpatched security vulnerabilities it had at the time, like trainman-in-the-middle attacks or buffer overflows with arbitrary code execution (Smith/Bane) we all know and love so much here in the real world.

    64. Re:Sequels not that bad by jaroslaw.fedewicz · · Score: 1

      It also seemed as though the Archtect used Neo to learn how to better create that next layer, and probably even had a hand in creating Neo for that purpose.

      I doubt it was a hand though, hands are not what you create humans with.

    65. Re:Sequels not that bad by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      There's something Resident Evil about that.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    66. Re:Sequels not that bad by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew more about space.

      Space is big
      Space is dark
      It's hard to find
      A place to park.

      (Burma-Shave!)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    67. Re:Sequels not that bad by GCPSoft · · Score: 1

      Only worth if you use it as an example of what not to do with your own life...

    68. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What if when you woke up, you didn't know the difference between the dream world, and the real world?"

      Leonardo DiCaprio will answer this question in Inception 2. He will then send the answer in Matrix 4 to Neo.

    69. Re:Sequels not that bad by inKubus · · Score: 1

      The machines have declared war on Christmas. Thus Neojus has to rise from the dead to save this precious holiday. Christrix IV, the Second Coming.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    70. Re:Sequels not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did that. It was called "Existenz".

  22. Sweet?!?!?! by alphax45 · · Score: 1

    My pants just got shorter!

    --
    K Man
  23. XKCD by alexander_686 · · Score: 0

    10th Anniversary
    http://xkcd.com/566/

  24. It needs to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHOA!!!!! DUDE!

  25. I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought they only ever made 1 movie, and it was good.

    Wouldn't this technically qualify as a second? I sure hope they don't dirty the concept with some crazy machine war, or an oddly pointless death of Neo's love interest.

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
    1. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they do that? It would just be silly. Next you'll suggest that the new films should mostly be about some little old Chinese guy running around with a bunch of keys.

    2. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, I thought at the end of 2 that they were going to go with a "you idiot, they're still in the matrix, the solution to people not being able to handle it was just to fool them into thinking they had escaped so they'd stop fighting it" approach.

      After all, THAT would at least have explained better why Neo was able to sense the damn squidbots and blow them up.

      But no, then they take the 3rd movie and bash you in the head with "Neo=Jesus" crap and a goddamn Dragonball Z-ish fistfight. The only thing missing was Neo's hair turning bright fucking yellow and standing on end when he Goku'ed out.

    3. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry his hair will turn bright fucking yellow... AND it will be in motherfucking 3D!

    4. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dude, I thought at the end of 2 that they were going to go with a "you idiot, they're still in the matrix, the solution to people not being able to handle it was just to fool them into thinking they had escaped so they'd stop fighting it" approach.

      After all, THAT would at least have explained better why Neo was able to sense the damn squidbots and blow them up.

      yeah, I had egg on my face after convincing people about this. It also explained the "cyclical" pattern that was described. My personal theory was that the machines won a long time ago, felt bad about killing all the humans, so created a bunch of programs to mimic them for study.

    5. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Dude, you just made me bean all over my keyboard.

      That's right. I Kami-hami-hurled.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes, only one movie ever existed.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Sssshhhh... stop revealing the plot of #4!

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    8. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I lean towards nanobots that gave Neo wireless access into the machines and allowed Smith to take over a person's brain but yea, it kind of requires reality stretching...

    9. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what happens when we are smarter then the writers, see this elsewhere when your area of expertise is blatently violated and everyone else in the room is saying "wow, what a great movie" while you are jumping up and down going "but, but, but...."

    10. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      My personal theory was that the machines won a long time ago, felt bad about killing all the humans, so created a bunch of programs to mimic them for study.

      That would nicely explain the acting.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:I agree, how could they be at 4 anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so created a bunch of programs to mimic them for study. ... which was called slashcode, and it was good.

  26. Will it ever happen? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    AICN is a rumour site. It gets a lot of news pretty early but it's not about accuracy.

    It may be completely made up. If it's not, all we have is a script. If they do decide they want to make this film, Keanu needs to be available. Even then, thousands of things could happen to prevent the film from being made.

    It could happen but don't hold your breath over a rumour of an initial concept for a movie.

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. no way I am wating to stop making bad baad baaaad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movies, what the guy can not get anything else (oh I forgot they making money)

  29. Yes, we al read XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I'm sure the joke is still funny the 17th time.

  30. Matrix 4: Morpheus ate too many donuts by phonewebcam · · Score: 0

    The scene shifts to a totally white endless floor without walls. Standing there is an overweight Morpheus in his trademark nosepinch sunglasses. On a table in front of him is a plate with some crumbs on it, next to a large bowl with something dark in it.

    Neo arrives.

    Neo: "Woah! Dude, how they gonna give me my eyes back in the real world?"
    Morpheus: "You must think beyond what you believe, Neo"
    Neo: "Oh man, here we go again. Shame you couldn't think beyond passing every burger joint you walked into for the last 10 years".
    Morpheus: "It is my destiny"
    Neo: "Look man, didn't Predators tell you anything? Some things should absolutely be left alone"
    Morpheus: "I'd like to eat that chocolate gateaux now but I have a problem".
    Neo: "Yeah? Like, whats that man?"
    Morpheus: "There is no spoon".

  31. New and exciting uses of technology #327 by lxs · · Score: 1

    Flogging a dead horse in 3D bullet time.

    Whoa

    1. Re:New and exciting uses of technology #327 by Spad · · Score: 2

      A fully CGI horse with twitching so realistic you'd swear it was a live-action horse.

    2. Re:New and exciting uses of technology #327 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND we get to see behind the scenes with celebrities piggyback riding people in green suits. It's a complete win.

  32. Did keanu also tell by unity100 · · Score: 1

    how many facial mimics and expressions will he be doing in new episodes ? 4 ? 5 ?

    in any case role of neo suits him well. however he should add 1 or 2 facial mimics to the existing ones for this movie.

    well, matrix 4, 5, still better than probable saw XVIII - The reckoning ...

    1. Re:Did keanu also tell by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you RTFA? The revolutionary special effects they're talking about are recording another actor's facial expressions then digitally putting them onto Keanu, giving us a realistic impression that he has a full range of emotions.

    2. Re:Did keanu also tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're right, if there's one thing basement dwelling geeks are renowned for it's their huge emotional range.

    3. Re:Did keanu also tell by unity100 · · Score: 1

      and ?

  33. ha ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    im a VERY picky, VERY hard to please person, yet, even i didnt find the 2 sequels 'a fork rammed into my eye'.

    it feels more like you are one of those people who dislike something when/if it becomes popular. substance over form, my friend, substance over form. see through the fog.

    1. Re:ha ? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Uh.. except that the first matrix was very popular.. which is why they are talking about a 4'th and 5'th sequel...

      And the 2'nd and 3'rd sequels were widely panned.. rotten tomatoes has the third one 40%.

      Infact I actually don't get how your post relates at all... please explain further.

    2. Re:ha ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      rotten tomatoes has the third one 40%.

      case in point.

    3. Re:ha ? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Still confused..

      it feels more like you are one of those people who dislike something when/if it becomes popular.

      First Matrix:
      Is Popular
      My post indicates I like it
      Your post indicates I don't like it (because it's popular)

      Second and Third Matrix:
      Not so popular (rotten tomatoes 40% etc)
      My post indicates I don't like them
      Your post mkaes no statement, but I would assume the inverse that I should like things which are unpopular if I dislike things which are popular.

      Your post seems backwards. I'm actually kind of swaying with the crowd on this one, liking the popular movie and disliking the unpopular ones. You have accused me of being some kind of non-conformist when I'm actually conforming like a sheep.

    4. Re:ha ? by unity100 · · Score: 1
      you are swaying with the crowd, which sways in the manner i described :

      Not so popular (rotten tomatoes 40% etc) My post indicates I don't like them

      geek behavior of disliking what becomes popular.

    5. Re:ha ? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      So essentially what you are saying is that he goes with the popular trend of disliking the popular, and therefore you have just nullified your own argument.

  34. Which religion next? by tsman · · Score: 2

    With Matrix 1 being purely Buddhist, part 2 going Confucian, and part 3 painfully going Christian, which religion of the thousands remaining will they choose to draw parallels/exploit?

    1. Re:Which religion next? by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm rooting for Pastafarian.
      Matrix 4: Spaghetti Code.

    2. Re:Which religion next? by a+Flatbed+Darkly · · Score: 1

      I'm throwing in my vote for Discordianism.

    3. Re:Which religion next? by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      If they really went for that, I'd consider seeing the movie.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    4. Re:Which religion next? by tsman · · Score: 1

      Pure Win :)

    5. Re:Which religion next? by natehoy · · Score: 2

      You're in luck, then. A new "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequel is coming out soon. Disney is doing their part to combat global warming.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Which religion next? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      I must be slipping, since it took me at least three re-reads to figure out why you were replying to my post with that.
      I obviously forgot that the decline of pirates clearly correlates to global warming.

    7. Re:Which religion next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll root for FSM too, but I'm expecting Judaism. Because at the end they'll all return to Zion for the party.

    8. Re:Which religion next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Matrix 1 being purely Buddhist, part 2 going Confucian, and part 3 painfully going Christian, which religion of the thousands remaining will they choose to draw parallels/exploit?

      Buddhist? Confucian?? CHRISTIAN??

      Puuh.. Try Jewish, and go back to school (Going back to school is metaphorical here, they most likely wont teach you this there).

  35. Matrix Online and Morpheus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just speculation here.

    The MMO The Matrix Online was supposed to be "the official continuation of the storyline of the Matrix series of films". My question is how this will fit in with the new films. Do the films take place after the events of The Matrix Online, before it, at the same time, are they a retelling of the game story, or is the game story going to be thrown out completely? If they will be considered one big questions is where is Morpheus considering he died during The Matrix Online.

    1. Re:Matrix Online and Morpheus by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Two words: "Red Matter".

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  36. Expensive script? by gmuslera · · Score: 1
    Also in the article they say

    - Keanu spoke about the need to encourage writers to continue to focus on working on new ideas and that a good script was worth its weight in gold. For example he said the Wachowski's had just sold the most expensive script in history to Warner Brothers. a modern futuristic take on the legend of "Robin Hood". Says he understands WB paid $5 million for the rights and that from what the wachowski's have told him, it will be an action movie that would have the same impact visually and technically that Terminator 2 had. Confirmed that Will Smith has agreed ti headline the picture.

    Would be that how the Wachowsky brothers would write the Wikileaks movie?

  37. Admit it. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a lot of you are disliking the sequels, and bashing them, because at that point the movie had had become popular in mainstream and everyone was talking about it.

    they WERE good movies. compare those two to the other movies from the last 80 years of moviemaking, and they will come up better than a lot of the movies you would vouch for, because they havent been so popular.

    this is one vice of geek crowd ... start bashing something when it becomes popular ..

    nothing changed in between the franchise being popular, and you starting bashing it. its promise was the same, its storyline was the same, it even seeded the chain of events properly in the first one quite straightly that one could easily guess what would have to happen based on that chain of events. and they did.

    holy crap. give those people a break. had there been less baseless bashing, there would have been more quality content.

    1. Re:Admit it. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Neo did magic in the "real" world. Unforgivable.

    2. Re:Admit it. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Gotta disagree with that one, it was the opposite really. In the theater I saw plenty of geeks and non-geeks in the audience, and both were looking at their watches. The truth is they were OK, but not great; I guess "terribly clever" would be the term.

      Average Joe consumer got two action movies that got boring fast and the nerds got to watch the cyberpunk genre die. Not exactly a win-win for either.

      I think that was a real bummer for the geek crowd, they saw the rise and fall of a genre that had survived in print with generally painful B-movie adaptations (with the exception of movies like Blade Runner) get a fast rise in pop culture and a painful crash in two movies. We'll probably never see an adaptation of something like Neuromancer or Snow Crash, because the Wachowskis's mined them to hell and left little to work with that wasn't now trite in pop culture. Not that it is entirely a bad thing, it just means that if the genre continues it will require a serious update, industrial smoke stacks, cyberspace and pseudo-philosophy won't be enough.

    3. Re:Admit it. by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      a lot of you are disliking the sequels, and bashing them, because at that point the movie had had become popular in mainstream and everyone was talking about it.

      I didn't like the sequels because they tried to add to what I believed was already a complete story and those flashy effects were no longer new and exciting. They didn't rewrite history like Heroes did in later seasons but I figure if they made Neo all-powerful at the end of the first movie there shouldn't have been a lot to work with in the second or third.

      The Matrix was a gimmick, albeit an awesome one, and I would probably have the same reaction to a second Avatar or another Tron because gimmicks stop working pretty quickly.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:Admit it. by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "We'll probably never see an adaptation of something like Neuromancer or Snow Crash"

      I sincerely hope we never do. Hollywood would rape either of those so violently that even die-hard fans of mrhands.mpg would look away squeamishly.

    5. Re:Admit it. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Not really. It could've been explained with something other than the whole Jesus thing, like another layer of the Matrix. But they took the shitty way out on that one.

    6. Re:Admit it. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Were you living in the same universe as me when they came out? The Matrix was massively popular. Not just among geeks, everyone was talking about it. It did well enough at the box office to get two sequels commissioned almost immediately.

      Then the second and third one came out. And they were bad. They were universally panned by critics, geeks loathed them, everyone else just found them confusing or boring. Sure, everyone was talking about them, but mainly to say that they were rubbish.

      I saw the second one in the cinema. There was a fault with the projector and then the fire alarm went off, so we had to go outside. It was only for about 20 minutes, and they told us they'd be letting us back in to watch the rest soon, but half of the audience had left by the time we resumed watching it. If you can't be bothered to wait 20 minutes to see the end of a film, you're probably not enjoying it that much.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Admit it. by m50d · · Score: 1
      a lot of you are disliking the sequels, and bashing them, because at that point the movie had had become popular in mainstream and everyone was talking about it.

      Look in the mirror dude. "Everyone" loves the first film, and hates the other two, so that argument doesn't hold water; rather, you're the one taking a contra-mainstream position so you look "hip".

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:Admit it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is fatally undermined by the fact that the geeks and the mainstream are in complete agreement regarding the Matrix movies. Both think the first one was pretty good and the sequels were awful. In order for anyone to do what you're accusing them of, they'd have to argue that the sequels were better, not worse.

    9. Re:Admit it. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      mainstream ? rotten tomatoes ?

    10. Re:Admit it. by dubsnipe · · Score: 1

      With Marilyn Manson's soundtrack for the first movie as my witness, I can assure you that franchise was famous right before any movie was released, so it had nothing to do with it.

  38. Re:4 and 5? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    Is this like Star Wars where they're starting with episode 4? Because it's a shame they haven't made more than 1 Matrix movie yet...

    What he said...

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  39. Write number 3 first by gig · · Score: 1

    The first movie is awesome, and the second movie is awesome, but the third? Fix it.

    1. Re:Write number 3 first by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      The first movie is awesome, and the second movie is awesome, but the third? Fix it.

      Other than the 20 minute long dance video, the 2nd one was "Acceptable"

  40. Spoiler alert by drmitch · · Score: 1

    Didn't Neo die at the end? So am I right in thinking these will take place some time after 1 and before 2&3?

  41. Re:What do you call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 3-hypermatrix!

  42. Lets see where this is going... by Goboxer · · Score: 2

    People are too quick to stop stuff that is already in motion. But I say if it isn't your money....let's see where this is going. There is only a small chance that it might break the world, and a lot bigger chance that it should be comedic gold.

    1. Re:Lets see where this is going... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at some point if you're lucky the audience takes ownership of it. Very few writers ever write anything that the audience takes on to that extent. George Lucas going back and screwing with it was a bad idea for that reason. It left an entire generation of film goers upset over him revising their experience.

      If you're lucky enough to have anything adopted like that for the love of God leave it alone.

  43. Highlander by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Recall that _Highlander_3_ opened with our hero sitting in an ornate chair, looking straight at the audience, and flatly stating (in so many words) that the previous movie* didn't exist and they were starting this sequel about 10 minutes before the original film ended.

    (* - aka _Highlander_2:_The_Sickening_)

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:Highlander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall. I never saw Highlander 3 because Highlander 2 was so godshitfucking awful.

    2. Re:Highlander by chill · · Score: 1

      And exactly what was the excuse used for Highlander: The Source? We blew all our money on hookers and coke and need another quick bit of cash?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:Highlander by winwar · · Score: 2

      "We blew all our money on hookers and coke and need another quick bit of cash?"

      I certainly hope that was the reason. Otherwise, someone might have thought it was a good idea. Who wasn't on coke.

    4. Re:Highlander by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Err, not sure if you are joking or serious, but I puked so much while watching Highlander 2 that I'm still not ready to risk Highlander 3, even after all those years !

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    5. Re:Highlander by jdc18 · · Score: 1

      And exactly what was the excuse used for Highlander: The Source? We blew all our money on hookers and coke and need another quick bit of cash?

      I though that was a well known hollywood fact

  44. After how the third bombed by a+Flatbed+Darkly · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the poor reception of the third enough to warn them away from making any more?

  45. Re:What do you call by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

    a holodeck? At least that would make the 3D actually 3D.

    --
    http://transformativeworks.org/
  46. Re:What do you call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A tensor?

  47. Critics suck the life out of movies by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    I just want to be entertained by an action flick. If I want to be moved, I'll see The King's Speech again.

    There's all kinds of room for a Matrix prequel. We really don't quite know how Neo begins to question the Matrix, and of course who got out first. Or if they were just survivors from the initial enslavement. Which means another prequel to explain the rise of the machines. Oh, wait, that's another movie. No, wait, plot is pretty much the same, just change a few things and it's fine. After all, how many action plots are there? Four? Gimme another big-budget Bond movie anyways, the weapons are actually better and the villains much more believable.

    If these turn out to be sequels instead, well, then they will probably explore life outside the Matrix in more detail. Grime and clever hacks sounds like another installment of Riddick, but it will be beautiful. Prequels mean more intellectualism. Sequels mean more action effects.

    I'll see them. Hell, they remade Tron and nobody died out here in meatspace because of it. So far as I know.

    Oh, when do we get the nedt two Star Trek movies? They need to put Vulcan back together, for starters. And Chris Pike needs his close-up.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Critics suck the life out of movies by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

      All those times the King stammered? Those were glitches in the Matrix.

    2. Re:Critics suck the life out of movies by QuackenDuck · · Score: 1

      Prequels mean more intellectualism.

      Two words: Star Wars

    3. Re:Critics suck the life out of movies by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      For the Matrix, prequels are more intellectual. For Star Wars, prequels are just profit

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Critics suck the life out of movies by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      A Matrix prequel could be a sequel to Terminator3... the machines won and put humans into the 1st Matrix but a revived Arnie releases the first "The One"... bwahahahaha!

      Hmmmm have to find some way to work Summer Glau into it though....

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    5. Re:Critics suck the life out of movies by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "the machines won and put humans into the 1st Matrix..."

      Naw, wrong machines. Then again, we really don't know, so it's just a matter of royalty payments, unless Fair use is invoked.

      "have to find some way to work Summer Glau into it though"

      More knives. No problem.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Critics suck the life out of movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Anamatrix contained a lot of the prequel information - as well as some bits that came between movies (The Final Flight of the Osiris, Neo helping Kid out of the Matrix by jumping off a building, Trinity searching for Neo but just getting a Guy killed in a train, etc (including the rise of the machines))

  48. Great by downmagic · · Score: 1

    More robot uprisings......IN 3D

  49. Jar Jar: Reloaded by Orleron · · Score: 2

    .....except in the prequel to the Matrix, it's Morpheus' retarded little brother played by Chris Rock.

  50. As a fan of sci-fi... by NathanM412 · · Score: 2

    I'm still looking forward to a set of bad Matrix sequels than any other sci-fi I've seen in the last few years.

  51. The basic theme of The Matrix in brief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The concept is a traditional Asian-anime "The Oppressed Becomes The Oppressor"

    From the Animatrix pre-shorts:

    1. Humans use robots as their slaves
    2. Some robots start to 'break free'
    3. Robots form city
    4. Humans try to wipe out city
    5. Robots almost get taken out but resist at the brink (nice asian "X commands the resources of an entire planet but Y by its bravery just barely resist" theme)
    6. The weapon of humans backfires and almost wipes out both parties, but hurts the humans more than the robots

    Cycle:

    1. Robots use humans as their slaves
    2. Some humans start to 'break free'
    3. Humans form city
    4. Robots try to wipe out city
    5. Humans almost get taken out but resist at the brink (nice asian "X commands the resources of an entire planet but Y by its bravery just barely resist" theme)
    6. The weapon of robots (Agent Smith) backfires and almost wipes out both parties, but hurts the robots more than the humans (I believe the point made that Agent Smith would keep expanding until he had taken over the entire Matrix wasn't sufficiently emphasised in the films, but that's aside)

    Throw in a 'resistance instead of slavery' aka Spartacus in the mix: The world is made so that you can choose between certain survival in slavery or almost certain death in fighting for freedom, and Neo unlike his predecessors chooses freedom. The "glitch in the matrix" is the desire for freedom over slavery.

    Neo then "breaks the cycle" into a new era of coexistence.

    Hence some fancy films and fancy effects, but the themes are pretty basic.

  52. people loved matrix 1 by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    people loved the original star wars trilogy

    so they go into subsequent movies with very high expectations. the second trilogy of star wars, or matrix 2&3: these were ok movies, no big deal

    but if you go into these movies with almost religious ecstatic expectations, you are severely disappointed, and then proceed to howl about it

    and so normal folk, who just want to be entertained, and are not worried about a matrix 4, must suffer the fanboy and his practically religious fundamentalist denunciations

    in short: matrix 4? ok, whatever, says the well-adjusted person

    the fanboy basement dweller: the idea of matrix 4 gets you rabidly upset

    GET. A. LIFE.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:people loved matrix 1 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen from slashdotters about Star Wars, most of the people who hated the prequels saw the original 3 as children. The only episode I didn't like was the last one -- those cheesy Ewoks were far worse than Jar Jar, who was actually funny. But then again, I was 25 when Episode IV was in the theaters.

    2. Re:people loved matrix 1 by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Holy condescending hyperbole, batman.

      Some people's expectations are different from other people's expectations, news at 11.

      Honestly you're the one who comes across as the most "upset" in this thread. Maybe you should relax a little when venting about other people's zealotry...

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    3. Re:people loved matrix 1 by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Honestly? I'd never analysed the first two Matrix films in that much depth, and I wasn't going into the third one looking for "answers" or anything. I hadn't expected the second movie to be great, and it wasn't, but I still liked it quite a bit.

      I hated the third movie because it was boring. Too much hollow action that went on forever, even more of those characters you didn't care about from the second movie, too little inside The Matrix and what there was felt empty and boring, the "big fight" in the rain felt like I'd seen it before even though I hadn't. Whole damn thing was just dull and stupid.

      You didn't need to be disappointed on a fanboy level to think that the third movie was crap.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  53. Keanu, Wachowski Guys, I know you're reading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, for GOD'S SAKE, make this one not suck. The first one was unquestionably one of the best sci fi movies ever made, in the top ten at least. But the second two were just shamefully horrible.

    That is all.

  54. Translation: the Wachowskis watched more anime by tekrat · · Score: 1

    The FIRST matrix movie was based heavily on "Ghost in the Shell". Now that the Wachowskis have watched "Serial Experiments Lain" and/or ".Hack", they are ready to do more.

    Also, have you ever considered that "The Terminator" and "The Matrix" are EXACTLY the same plot, just that one takes place inside Skynet and the other outside Skynet? Combine the two, and you end up with the basic plot to William Gibson's "Neuromancer"?

    Frankly, for all of you spouting about how great and original the first Matrix was, the only thing original about it was that it combined a lot of existing tropes in a way *you* never saw before. And the reason the sequels were so bad is that they didn't have time to rip off as much anime as they did the first time around. (The Gundams in the third film were a dead giveaway though).

    But since then, they've had plenty of time to rip off cyberpunk anime. So, they might not be as bad as #2 and #3... But who knows?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Translation: the Wachowskis watched more anime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a really good point. In fact I'd say that every movie, every book, every poem is really just a lame copy of something that preceded it. The only good story is the very first story ever told, because it was original at the time. Everything else sucks. We shouldn't enjoy any new movies at all because none of them are 100% original content. So there, and get off my bitter lawn that surrounds my ivory tower.

    2. Re:Translation: the Wachowskis watched more anime by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      The Gundams in the third film were a dead giveaway though

      I've never really understood that. Bipedal transport makes sense all-terrain. When you're fighting on a flat, paved road, wheels work so much better.

      Similarly, arms made sense on the Aliens loader, because it was a giant forklift. For combat, using arms and hands with giant oversized weapons just looks foolish. Requiring the operator to aim the guns down the barrel is doubly so. Why wouldn't you just put a gun platform on a turret, with a proper targeting mechanism?

    3. Re:Translation: the Wachowskis watched more anime by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1

      The Matrix also seemed to mirror Dark City. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_City_(1998_film)

    4. Re:Translation: the Wachowskis watched more anime by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Similarly, arms made sense on the Aliens loader, because it was a giant forklift. For combat, using arms and hands with giant oversized weapons just looks foolish. Requiring the operator to aim the guns down the barrel is doubly so. Why wouldn't you just put a gun platform on a turret, with a proper targeting mechanism?

      I hated the scene where they had a whole damn army of them in those Aliens-style mechasuits. Specifically for the bit when the guy in charge is psyching them up and they throw their arms (and by extension, the mechanised arms on the suits) up in the air in a cheesily macho way.

      Yeah, it's really damn realistic that they're going to be waving around those massively-powerful hydraulic arms- which we can safely assume are massively powerful and could cause serious damage- around in close proximity to each other.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:Translation: the Wachowskis watched more anime by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Made at the same time in the same building! Personally I think Dark City is a better way to explore some of the same themes, but the original Matrix movie is mostly about action and IMHO does that well.

  55. Re:What do you call by jnikkel · · Score: 1

    In general, a tensor.

  56. Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by Layth · · Score: 1

    "but there's no rational basis whatsoever for him being fucking telekinetic in the real world." - wrong
    Didn't you notice the huge metal plate / computer interface grown into the back of his skull since childbirth?

    He probably has a wireless router in there, which explains how he was able to interact with machinery.
    Not everything in the future needs direct wired connections ya know.

    1. Re:Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by delinear · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really explain why all the human "batteries" have a two inch thick slab of cable hard wired into their heads. Why bother with WiFi if they're all hard wired? And if they do have WiFi you'd think that would make them incredibly easy to track and that they were never "disconnected" from the network in the first place, so why the Squiddies have such a hard time finding them makes no sense.

    2. Re:Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      because no matter how cool we make power-over-the-air, if you have direct physical contact with the power source it will make more sense to plug a wire in. Air has quite a bit of resistance.
      That said, there's a difference between being usable as a battery, and being able to connect to the VR. They might share a pipe, but perhaps he just figured out a way to do it without the wire...is that really so crazy?
      I'd still just prefer that he was figuring out a second layer, though ;)

    3. Re:Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by gknoy · · Score: 1

      While I like (I think?) the idea of him being wirelessly in-touch with the Matrix, I think that having a six inch metal spike inserted into your head does not count as "wireless".

    4. Re:Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by Zneiva · · Score: 1

      "but there's no rational basis whatsoever for him being fucking telekinetic in the real world." - wrong Didn't you notice the huge metal plate / computer interface grown into the back of his skull since childbirth?

      I believe that Layth is entirely correct; and it amazes me that everyone, especially geeks, freak out about this so much.

      Why people today are somehow shocked by human (using high tech electronics) being able to wirelessly communicate with computers to send a message (in this case: SELF-DESTRUCT) is beyond me. Radio chips are the size of a penny NOW.

      Neo never does telekinetics in the real world, he uses a wireless backdoor to send commands to nearby computers, not shocking; he also does some simple low-res augmented reality overlay to give him a visual representation in 3D space of other wirelessly connected pieces of electronics, also not shocking.

      Why is it deemed unlikely that the Oracle reprogrammed Neo to perform a task (either one more loop through the cycle, or a more definitive change to the world). We're shown computer programs in the Matrix using food as a code delivery mechanism into human brains with the cake->orgasm scene. Still not shocking.

      And as for the whole agent Smith taking over a human thing: with that much electronic hardware in their brains, what's to say that the plug-in couldn't take over the motor/sensory control portions of the brain. The host's higher-functioning portions of his brain are still his own, it just isn't in control; the software running on the receiving side of the plug is (a pity Dollhouse couldn't stick to that kind of model...). I'm still not shocked.

      When it comes down to it, the end of the first Matrix movie was shallow and pointless (Neo takes over the holodeck!!). The sequels had some horrible flaws (questionable CGI, painfully long fight/chase scenes, heavy handed music, etc...), but it gives a far better ending than the first movie.

    5. Re:Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      the purpose of the interface was to not lose energy, especially since people don't come built-in with power-over-air transmitters. The VR interface was just added since it was already there...and why not, at that point. 400 years from now with ultra-smart AI I don't think wireless tech will be all that hard to deal with.
      My point is merely that many people complain about that particular bit...which seems odd, since there are obvious technical reasons it could have happened.

    6. Re:Wrong - It's Perfectly Rational by Zneiva · · Score: 1

      I choose to do the same thing that the sequels do: ignore the battery stupidness of the first movie.

      A 100% immersive world is a HUGE amount of data, requiring a wired connection for that is valid. Neo does nothing that requires a huge amount of bandwidth wirelessly.

      There is no reason to believe the wi-fi is on, or that anybody knows about it (even most of the AIs), and it could default to a very short range. Hell, perhaps its just part of the handshaking procedure for when the big spike goes in their heads; whatever.

      The second layer might be true, but to me is boring as shit. I like the sequels because the movie is no longer about a fight in holodeck, and the 'second layer' argument just isn't needed.

  57. Sequels vs. serials by tepples · · Score: 2

    If you want to talk sequel whores there are others that are worse such as [...] the main cast of Harry Potter

    Do you really think a 7-year story like this could reasonably have been condensed into one 2-hour film? You might as well call the actors in The Lord of the Rings films sequel whores. And you might as well call the cast of any TV series sequel whores.

    1. Re:Sequels vs. serials by Combatso · · Score: 1

      lets call them serial whores... mmm.... cereal whores

    2. Re:Sequels vs. serials by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      This has me pondering on what to consider a sequel. It's almost as if the term is dismissive in nature. I didn't consider the Mad Max movies to be sequels. I felt that the three movies were different enough to be more than simple character re-hashes that we normally associate with sequels. But then, I liked the movies so maybe I'm biased.

    3. Re:Sequels vs. serials by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Don't cereal whores lead to cereal rapists?

  58. Ninja Assassin by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

    The reason I know damn well that the Wachowskis aren't any good at making movies is that I saw Ninja Assassin on HBO. What a steaming pile of garbage. In the last decade they made the following films:

    The Matrix Reloaded
    The Matrix Revolutions
    V for Vendetta *didn't direct*
    Speed Racer
    Ninja Assassin

    The only film there which I could even stand(I'll admit, I didn't see Speed Racer") was the one they didn't direct. Maybe if they put the Matrix in the hands of a different director I would be willing to give it a chance, but I'm really not feeling it if they're the primaries on this one.

  59. This is a ploy, and you are the target by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

    How many people have all 3 movies on DVD?
    How many have all 3 on Blueray?

    It seems to me that by releasing yet more Matrix sequels, this long after the originals, will cause many to update their existing collection to Blueray versions.

    Matrix 4 - The Matrix Strikes Back (at your wallet)
    Matrix 5 - I saw all 5 moves and all I got was this stupid merchandise.

    Then comes the platinum super-ultra-mega special edition collection. Shortly followed by the "Directors Cut", and the limited special edition action-figure release.

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
    1. Re:This is a ploy, and you are the target by somersault · · Score: 1

      I only ever bought the first on DVD as I didn't cosider the others worth seeing again.

      I now have all 3 on blu-ray just because the box set seemed like a good deal, and the bile has settled somewhat since the sequels originally came out and dashed my idealistic hopes to the ground.

      I watched the 3rd again last year and didn't think it was entirely awful, and I might watch the 2nd again soon now that this thread has reminded me of it. Some of the fight scenes in the 2nd movie were pretty good.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:This is a ploy, and you are the target by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Most importantly, how many have watched the excellent Animatrix?

    3. Re:This is a ploy, and you are the target by delinear · · Score: 1

      Somewhat similar - bought the first one on DVD (missed it at the cinema unfortunately); saw the second one at the cinema and was so disappointed that I didn't buy the DVD; rented the third on DVD and don't even remember most of it. If I'm their target for 4 and 5 then I'm afraid they're going to miss (unless I hear reports that 4 is awesome, in which case I might buy it cheap on DVD and if I concur, go watch 5, I don't envisage this happening but I wouldn't be unhappy if it did).

    4. Re:This is a ploy, and you are the target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really into cartoons any more.

    5. Re:This is a ploy, and you are the target by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Shortly followed by the "Directors Cut"

      But unlike the usual Directors Cut, this one will not have extra scenes. Instead it will have the worst scenes removed.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  60. Re:What do you call by BiggoronSword · · Score: 1

    Not a table.

    --
    interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
  61. Awesome! by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    Awesome! Can't wait! The entire trilogy is quite good, if you watch all 3 movies in a row and don't wait through multiple years of hyped up marketing expectations for #2 and #3. The story simply never finished in #1. And while #3 did conclude things, it left a lot of questions unanswered. I like the idea suggested on another thread here that everything we thought was real in the original trilogy might actually be another layer of The Matrix. :)

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  62. um.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

    What does Keanu Reeves have to do with performing arts, and why did they let him speak at that school?

  63. In medias res by tepples · · Score: 1

    Let me guess: You didn't like The Odyssey, Amazing Grace, The Blind Side, or Sintel, all of which begin in the middle.

    1. Re:In medias res by Anrego · · Score: 1

      It's ok within the same movie..

      I'm talking more when you go back to the middle of a story that was covered in one movie and introduce something that wasn't part of the original using another movie.

    2. Re:In medias res by tepples · · Score: 1

      So they made The Passion of the Christ. Would it be ungermane to make prequels The Nativity of the Christ and The Ministry of the Christ? After Apollo 13, would it be ungermane to make prequels about previous Apollo missions?

  64. Yes well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can criticize the movies all you want, but you can't deny that the producers made more more money off of them than you will ever make in your entire life.

    1. Re:Yes well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worthington law: have more money= better and beyond criticism
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

    2. Re:Yes well by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Pablo Escobar used to do the same.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  65. does this mean we can forget the second and third by grapeape · · Score: 1

    If they really need to do a 4th and 5th, perhaps it should open with Neo waking up after a bad reaction from having taken the Blue pill in the first movie...then we can all just pretend that the 2nd and 3rd were just figments of his imagination.

  66. The Porn Matrix by Paradoks · · Score: 1

    Someone tried to convince me that there was a real Matrix 2, but when I watched The Matrix Reloaded, I realized it was just a porno spoof. I mean, seriously, would a real movie spend THAT much time switching between a sexy-hot party and a sexy-hot sex scene?

    1. Re:The Porn Matrix by somersault · · Score: 1

      It really wasn't that hot.. definitely not sexy-hot.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:The Porn Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still hid the DVD from my Mom just to be safe.

  67. The rave scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By "the rave scene" I mean the one immediately following the address by Morpheus to the people of Zion, and then everyone dances and Trinity and Neo go off by themselves (ahem). This scene received a storm of bad commentary. People said, "that scene sucked," or, "it was way too long," or, most often, "that scene was totally unnecessary."

    Oh, how wrong. It's not that the story information in this scene could not have been presented differently. But the scene did its job very well. (To be fair, I have seen a lot of people "get" this scene, but still not like it. Clue stick: life is dirty.)

    First, just as we enter this scene we see that it is in a kind of temple. No fancy interpretation necessary: this is a spiritual event. That initial view means everything that happens for the rest of the scene should be interpreted as having spiritual significance. And here are the highlights:

    1. Repeated shots of feet on the ground.
    2. People dancing in a sexually provocative manner.
    3. Almost everyone has at least some African ethnicity.
    4. Wide shots showing molten lava at the center of the cathedral.
    5. Neo and Trinity are naked, and have sex.

    The feet on the ground means that Zion is on Earth. Plain and simple. This parallels the Architect scene, and gets to the main thesis. We are cast out of the "perfection" of Heaven and living in the Real World. Symbolically, the Matrix is Heaven. Cypher makes this point in the first movie. The Real World is hard, dirty, and uncomfortable. The Matrix is, well, paradise. This point is made again in the first movie by Agent Smith, who calls the Matrix "the perfect human world" [paraphrased]. Recall that the Architect scene happens in utterly clean, utterly white perfection[1].

    The Biblical reference is clear enough. Neo, Trinity, Morpheus, and the rest of Zion have rejected God's Garden of Eden where all their needs are taken care of in favor of a hard, scrabbling existence where at least they have free will.

    A minor diversion: This is how we come to interpret the serpent in the Garden as the inventor (or hacker, or technologist). The serpent is the catalyst for curiosity and the invention of agriculture. He asks significant questions, of the form: "God gave you such-and-such rules. Given those rules, should not such-and-such a result be possible?" The reason he posits questions like that is because he has to. On Earth, you will either inventor you will perish. [Diversion from the diversion: I understand such figures (e.g., the serpent, Loki) to be abstract models of parts of our own psyches. So this part of Genesis really means that a human being or group of human beings will begin spiritual growth by asking the type of questions posed by the serpent. Taken another way, God wants us to be curious, rational, and...well, to apply the scientific method.]

    Now about the sexuality of the dance. Morpheus' speech before the dance helps us interpret the meaning of the dance: we are in the Real World of flesh and blood and dirt and animal instinct. This is not Heaven where divine, passionless entities "do what they are there to do." (There is entirely another thesis in those words.) This is Passion and Feeling. The first interview with the Merovingian included an "orgasm sequence" meant to make a point about free will. But did you notice how the orgasm played out? It was explosive but mechanical. Not anything like the animal lust of the dance scene. In Zion, we see human beings neither rejecting their animal selves, nor completely giving over to their animal selves either -- it is a human activity with choice and rhythm and purpose, but also filled with basic impulses. In other words, they are reveling in their humanity.

    Another diversion: I hate to do this again, but I don't want the point to get away. Mythology of all stripes teaches that we are between worlds. The very Nordic concept of "Middle Earth" means literally "in the middle between the animal world and the divine world." To be human is to sta

    1. Re:The rave scene by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Wow... You really need to get out of your mom's basement....

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  68. I'm at a loss by confused+one · · Score: 1

    Neo's dead. It took Trinity's love to bring him back last time.

    Trinity is dead

    How do we get here from there? The world's been saved and the path forward has been laid out for both sides to see. Morpheusis alive and can act as an apostle, guiding the humans. What is the purpose in re-incarnating our saviour figure again?

    1. Re:I'm at a loss by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It might not be a major part - it could be something like Obi-Wan in the second and third Star Wars films. He's dead, but he died inside the Matrix so there may still be some parts of his mind there, echos which can appear and give advice to the other characters at crucial points.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:I'm at a loss by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Ah, you forget the art of prequels. When you run out of stuff that happened *later*, just make up stuff *before*. You could even go so far before that none of the characters are even born yet and do a Toy Story in Matrix universe.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  69. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am cautiously optimistic about this. While the two sequels lost something during production, they did display a large amount of planning and intelligence on the part of the creators.

    There are two things I am curious about: how can they involve Neo? We saw virtually his entire life outside of the matrix, a matter of mere months compressed into the three films, which seemed to end with his death.

    Second thing: Will this explain how Neo has powers in the real world? He could see Smith and he tele-electrocuted at least one sentinel, where he isn't supposed to be practically any different from any other human. There is the whole matrix-in-a-matrix idea, where Neo hacks the 'real world', but what could they do after that?

  70. Matrix --- with less Planet Zeist by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

    I envision this is going to be like Highlander. Start with mediocre film with some clever ideas and generate crappy sequels which ignored each other.

  71. Already out, saw it last weekend... by matt_martin · · Score: 1

    I think it was called "Tron: Legacy", or something like that.

    --
    Lurking in the desert
  72. Wait! by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    Its April already?!?!

  73. #Awwhellno by tkprit · · Score: 1

    First, the actors have all aged considerably. That magic bullet time effect would have to account for some beer guts now, which I'm afraid means that not only do the actors have to contort themselves away from the bullet in slo mo, but the bullet will have to change trajectory to hop over the flab. (Maybe the flab can contort into a pancake shape, but that's NOT something I want to see). I can't imagine a way that would be pretty.

    Two, Neo's dead. I didn't get most of what happened in the last movie, who the oracles were, or actually what happened at all, but I got that Neo's ass died and he became a sunset or something.

    Mostly though, Three: the damned machines were right all along! I didn't know that until animatrix (canon) showed that the machines had some reason to be pissed (they were human's slaves; we tried to kill them); they didn't kill humans but used their energy and gave them a happy. That bit of backstory sorta ruined the franchise for me.

    And 4. Whatever tech the Wach Bros do in the 3D movies will be used in every single movie, even chick flicks, for the next ten years. They should pat themselves on the back for bullet time and retire.

  74. He is programmed to think he is human... by ZankerH · · Score: 1

    and he has a plan?

  75. In the style of Animaniacs... by shish · · Score: 1

    Good idea:

    revolutionize the action genre like the first "Matrix" film did

    Bad idea:

    They are planning to make the films in 3D

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  76. Matrix was not bad by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The matrix left high concept Sci Fi and became more comic gothic and set piece action oriented as it went along. The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.
      The original compelling mystery and challenge were exposed so new meta physical plots and myth had to be injected. Perhaps the problem was they invented these in a way that tried to hold the patinia of hard core physical sci-fi but was utterly transparent and ill fitting. For example I like Larry Niven and I liked watching Lord of the RIngs. But I'd not like both in the same soup.

    People had similar complaints about the evolution of Battelstar gallactica, though there it the conversion was not so complete.

    But if you stand back and just look at these gloriously filmed movies all you can say is Wow. No matter how the story morphed the results were just screen filling action mayhem. And I want to see more for sure. I'll still complain the Reeves is a wooden pole of an actor, though to be fair he's hamstrung now by the deification. We all liked him better when he was less of a god and more of a confused apprentice. But he's just a prop. I don't have to like him to like the movie.

    These will be fantastic in 3D.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Matrix was not bad by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      3d is stupid.

      the new generation will get bored of it just like we did years ago when they tried to revive it yet again.

      glasses? oh please. I already wear glasses and nothing you can do will make watching 3d *fun* if I have to wear goggles or glasses or other stupid things. even worse when its *shared* pre-worn glasses in a community theatre. yeah, I'm real excited to put on some glasses over my glasses and pay extra for it.

      the effects are distracting and not necessary. I saw avatar and liked it - but 'only' saw the 2d version at home. I got the story and saw the effects. didn't need glasses or eye tricks to fark with my mind.

      give it 5 yrs and no one will remember the 3d experiment that re-re-re-took place yet again.

      its just a money grab to resell new equipment and media. don't you get that?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Matrix was not bad by goombah99 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Woah there Mr Crabbypants. 3D is a whole lot of entertaining fun. I imagine that people said the same things when they made the transition to talkies.

      I guess one could argue that CGI is good because it makes things so real that you believe the story more and lets more fanciful story telling reach its full impact. 3D of course doesn't really help with the story telling but it does help with conveying sensations. And of course it's just plain fun.

      We've only touched the surface of 3D. Most movies to date are 2D movies with depth. But I think JAmes Cameron has pointed the way on how to capture stories that live in 3D.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    3. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been an industry shill for long?

    4. Re:Matrix was not bad by hedwards · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, the problem was that the reason why everything in the first movie was so cool, was that it was mysterious and it was the result of the matrix. After the 1st movie when Neo manages to figure out his gift they didn't really leave themselves any room for sequels. Basically they wrote themselves out of a series and then tried to continue anyways.

      Good writers tend to leave the door open in some fashion for a sequel, which is almost inevitable in most cases, in this case though they managed to slam the door shut.

      That being said, I haven't bothered to watch either of the last two movies because they're not legitimate matrix movies. They use the same characters and effects, but with Neo winning in the first movie there's no way for the series to continue without resorting to something really lame.

    5. Re:Matrix was not bad by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I agree. Goku always had some new level of Super Sajin to rise to. An infinite amount of doors to open :p

    6. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, hell I'm one of the few people I know who enjoy the whole trilogy.

      One problem I see with things such as the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequels is that in the end, it exists for the hard core fans. The people most interested into delving into the mythos are those who buy the comics, read the novels, and wants it all to tie together, and those are the people who these kinds of movies are designed to really please. In doing that, they often lose the tight narrative and wide ranging appeal their progenitor had, and because of where these products have to fit into their timeline they often don't follow conventional story telling mechanics, thus losing critics and the average movie goer. Sometimes the filmmakers attempt to reclaim new audiences with concepts that lose even their original hard core fan base (Jar Jar Binks for the kids is a great example) and fall flat.

      Then the stigma that they suck kinda sticks, and it's cool not to like things that are popular so you have this loud voice denouncing the films. Sadly, there's little place in discussing these movies for guys like me who enjoy them for what they are and would like to see more of them.

    7. Re:Matrix was not bad by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Good 3D is good fun... sadly, it's been kind of a rarity. If the interocular distance between the two lenses is wrong (obviously, when shooting actual film/video), the 3D will look wrong. Let's not even go into the abysmal failures of the various fake 3D algorithms.

      Cameron did it right, including creating his Cameraon-Pace 3D camera, which has variable interocular distance, and all kinds of other coolness. So it's encouraging that the Wachowskis are talking to him. And hopefully, they've learned a great deal about how NOT to make film ("Speed Racer", "The Matrix Reloaded", "Speed Racer", "The Matrix Revolutions", "Speed Racer", etc.)

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    8. Re:Matrix was not bad by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi..."

      The idea of an ultra-sophisticated system able to enslave the human race that can only be defeated by virtual-reality karate fighting was what did it for me.

    9. Re:Matrix was not bad by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.

      I disagree. People didn't dislike the sequels because of the metaphysics and fantasy elements, but because it was an incoherent mess that took random elements of various religions and mythologies, threw them all into a blender and turned them into an undigestable pinkish-grey loaf of eschatological babble.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    10. Re:Matrix was not bad by jfengel · · Score: 1

      people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics

      Especially hackneyed, half-assed metaphysics.

      Then again, from what I've observed, a lot of 'em really like hackneyed, half-assed metaphysics. It feels "deep" without actually requiring or providing any substantial insight. But you can't keep it going too long, or the lack of insight becomes obvious. One movie is about all you can keep it going for, i.e. Matrix 1.

    11. Re:Matrix was not bad by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      For example I like Larry Niven and I liked watching Lord of the RIngs. But I'd not like both in the same soup.

      "Lord of the Ringworld"?

    12. Re:Matrix was not bad by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful, but I would characterize the loaf as greyish-pink.

    13. Re:Matrix was not bad by __aapspi39 · · Score: 1

      Add to that the fact that both sequels came across like very poor philosophy lectures, given by professors that couldn't really be bothered to learn the differences between causality, determinism and fatalism.

      I avoided watching both movies for years but when i finally did the overall effect might be compared to drinking the Wachowski brothers' stale bong water. Grim viewing.

    14. Re:Matrix was not bad by Target+Practice · · Score: 1

      The idea of an ultra-sophisticated system able to enslave the human race that can only be defeated by virtual-reality karate fighting was what did it for me.

      And with that one sentence you've forever ruined The Matrix for me.

      --
      There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
    15. Re:Matrix was not bad by epp_b · · Score: 1

      he reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.

      No, I hated it because it was awful.

    16. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi..."

      The idea of an ultra-sophisticated system able to enslave the human race that can only be defeated by virtual-reality karate fighting was what did it for me.

      Obviously you never saw Tron, or Jurassic Park... clearly he was hacking a UNIX system through an ENCOM laser digitization of himself.

    17. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone likes to beat up the Matrix sequels, but nobody mentions the fact that there are people out there like me that actually liked them. I'm sick of all the bullies out there making us feel bad for like them. Same goes for the Star Wars Prequel trilogy, I liked them too. Sure they are perfect, but neither were any of the originals.

    18. Re:Matrix was not bad by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      ...threw them all into a blender and turned them into an undigestable pinkish-grey loaf of scatological babble.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    19. Re:Matrix was not bad by jythie · · Score: 1

      I would argue the exact opposite.. these movies do not exist for the hardcore fans, in fact they tend to do the opposite of what hardcore fans would be interested in. Usually such movies exist to try to bring more people into a franchise by generalizing the movies more and more for broader appeal.. which is why they generally tend to do poorly.

    20. Re:Matrix was not bad by jythie · · Score: 1

      I really hope Niven is not reading this... I could see him trying to jump an even bigger shark with Ringworld if he believed he could cram out another book...

    21. Re:Matrix was not bad by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Nope, Goku had to stop at becoming one with the Dragonballs after Fusion SSJ4. That was the ultimate level-up.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    22. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how the story morphed the results were just screen filling action mayhem.

      I see your memory has mercifully blotted out the interminable scenes with ther mind-numbingly dull Architect and Merovingian, and the cringe-inducing half hour party/sex scene.

      The fights were fun and often surprisingly inventive. It was when they tried to do character development that the movies turned into irredeemable unwatchable rubbish.

    23. Re:Matrix was not bad by skarphace · · Score: 1

      That being said, I haven't bothered to watch either of the last two movies because they're not legitimate matrix movies. They use the same characters and effects, but with Neo winning in the first movie there's no way for the series to continue without resorting to something really lame.

      Maybe you should actually watch them before shitting all over them? And I also don't know what you're talking about, the first movie was way open ended.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    24. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi..."

      The idea of an ultra-sophisticated system able to enslave the human race that can only be defeated by virtual-reality karate fighting was what did it for me.

      I thought it was kung-fu...

    25. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.

      I disagree. People didn't dislike the sequels because of the metaphysics and fantasy elements, but because it was an incoherent mess that took random elements of various religions and mythologies, threw them all into a blender and turned them into an undigestable pinkish-grey loaf of eschatological babble.

      Living up to your name, I see..

    26. Re:Matrix was not bad by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, I really liked parts of both of them. My first comment coming out of "Revolutions" was there was no way that "Revenge of the Sith" was going to be anywhere near as cool. And I was right.

      That said, the story was still a incomprehensible mess and what enjoyment could be had out of the movies lay almost exclusively in the awesome visuals and action.

      But on the whole, I would rather rewatch "2001" or Tartovsky's "Solaris" (I haven't seen the remake yet).

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    27. Re:Matrix was not bad by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that one occurred to me too. :-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    28. Re:Matrix was not bad by jammer170 · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad, I liked both the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequel trilogy, too. Personally, I seem to find something new every time I watch the Matrix sequels. I tend to find that people who call it a "mish-mash" of religions and philosophies have missed some very interesting subtext. I know I did until I read part of "Simulacra and Simulation" and actually sat pondering some of the movie.

      Really, at the end of it, I think the Matrix trilogy is more about what the viewer gets out of it rather than what the Wachowski's put into it.

      --
      Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
    29. Re:Matrix was not bad by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      I just hated the sequels because they sucked.

    30. Re:Matrix was not bad by kikito · · Score: 1

      I liked the first movie, quite a lot. Watched the second on the cinema, donwloaded the third and I could not wait for it to end.

      I do metaprogramming and I do metapresentations. What Matrix II and III had wasn't meta-physics. It was just bad plot, bad acting, and a waste of time and money.

      Comparing Battlestar Galactica with that is like comparing Mozart with a drunk orc without teeth singing a song he doesn't know.

    31. Re:Matrix was not bad by Rinnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.

      You guys keep talking about the philosophy in the movies, and don't seem to touch base on the films themselves. As far as I am concerned, they were just poorly made films. What about the fact that the plot started making no sense? That from one scene to the next, it became difficult to follow the motivations of any of the characters? That concepts were introduced that had no grounding in anything the viewer already knew, but we're expected to understand anyways. The increasingly arbitrary plot points were harder and harder to get behind. It became more of a chore to understand why Neo did the things he did, or why some of it even mattered. What about the fact that the main "bad guy" from the first movie made a reappearance against all logic, just because he would be a recognizable character, that we already know is bad?

      How about the pacing? Between all these arbitrary plot points was a lot of fighting that didn't always make sense. I mean, obviously they are fighting because that guy punched Neo, but beyond that, it's just a fight scene. There is such a thing as an action scene taking TOO long. The Matrix 1 was impressive because they did so much with so little. A simple dodging a bullet shot taken with still cameras was a cultural icon for years to come. A motorcycle chase that went on too long just got boring.

      The reason I hated Matrix 2 and 3 had nothing to do with metaphysics, and everything to do with the fact that as films, they were poorly made. In my opinion: they tried too hard to capture what made the Matrix 1 great, and ended up ruining it.

    32. Re:Matrix was not bad by cavebison · · Score: 1

      These will be fantastic in 3D.

      "Look", perhaps, but that's all. Personally I prefer being told a story, and using my imagination, than participate in this drive to spoon-feed the senses so it's all "experience" with no effort by the viewer. I hope it goes the way of smell-o-vision.

      IMO 3D makes movies worse, not better.

    33. Re:Matrix was not bad by cavebison · · Score: 1

      The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.

      You sure use the word "people" a lot. Who are these "people" of which you speak?

      I do love people who generalise though. Makes me feel so unique and special if I disagree. :)

    34. Re:Matrix was not bad by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The matrix left high concept Sci Fi and became more comic gothic and set piece action oriented as it went along. The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi or at least don't like it when expecting one and get served the other.

      For what it's worth, I thought it was merely boring.

      I'm not any particular fan of "scientific" sci fi... maybe I just have an aversion to pop metaphysics.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    35. Re:Matrix was not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... by virtual-reality karate fighting was..."

      It's KUNG FU!!!!

    36. Re:Matrix was not bad by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      Nah. The first movie spilled all the beans. The universe was really only compelling and interesting (to me) in the first movie. After that, no amount of SFX can cover up a mediocre story. That's also why I'm doubtful regarding movie 4 and 5.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    37. Re:Matrix was not bad by alexo · · Score: 1

      People didn't dislike the sequels because of the metaphysics and fantasy elements, but because it was an incoherent mess that took random elements of various religions and mythologies, threw them all into a blender and turned them into an undigestable pinkish-grey loaf of eschatological babble.

      You misspelled "scatological".

  77. Terminator much different imo by tkprit · · Score: 1

    At least in Terminator, the machines wanted to kill humans dead and were clearly the bad guys; and time travel explained the prophecies and was somewhat understandable.

    In Matrix, humans used machines as slaves, tried to kill them, EPIC FAILED. Machines used us for energy, but gave us a happy reality. They were not one-dimensional bad guys (—and they got screwed in the end). And I still don't understand who/what the Oracle is, why Neo was The One, and why he was a sunset in the end.

    1. Re:Terminator much different imo by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      In the Terminator series one machine is trying to kill humans: Skynet. Its reason for this changes depending on what movie you're watching but it boils down to humans being scared at what they've created and trying to kill Skynet. This turned out to be a bad move.*

      All those terminators, HKs etc running/rolling/flying around are just 'fingers' with varying levels of autonomy.

      *Humanity kinda deserved though, I think. If you're building something that's leagues ahead of any human in terms of intelligence only a moron puts it in charge of freakin' nukes.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  78. Neuromancer by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

    How about actually making a movie based on Neuromancer (like the original Matrix was supposed to be) instead of yet another bad sequel to Matrix?

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  79. Bound 2 instead please! in 3-D! by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon in 3-D? I'm there. We're talking $100M box office, easy.

    .

  80. Not that bad. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    The first Matrix movie was memorable. It played on rather simplistic metaphysical concepts but I still found it quite a bit more engaging than the usual action/sci-fi movie.

    I didn't expect much from the sequels. However, with the exception of a few cringe-worthy scenes I found them entertaining. Certainly not memorable in the least as the two sequels were a blur of action punctuated some nonsensical exposition. There were a few moments where some potential showed through, but really they're not the sort of movies you're supposed to invest a whole lot of thought in.

    Certainly, the new Star Wars trilogy was much worse and much more offensive in terms of dialog and storytelling. Transformers, the first I haven't yet seen the sequel, was quite terrible despite the fact that it was entertaining to watch giants robots fight. So in the scheme of things the Matrix sequels aren't that bad, or at least no worse than the crap that is usually pumped out of Hollywood.

  81. Harry Potter sequel whores? What about LOTR? by axl917 · · Score: 1

    the main cast of Harry Potter

    Is the cast of LOTR a bunch of sequel whores too in your eyes? That was a pretty dumb inclusion.

  82. Dear Mods, Taco, anybody by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PLEASE erase this post before someone from Hollywood reads it. PLEASE.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Dear Mods, Taco, anybody by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      PLEASE erase this post before someone from Hollywood reads it. PLEASE.

      Actually, that suggestion is probably better than anything they will actually do.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Dear Mods, Taco, anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One has to be the Chosen One in order to erase the posts in /. See, there is no comma. It is not that the sentence ends there, rather, it is you who stop reading there.

    3. Re:Dear Mods, Taco, anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concur! Ten seconds more of Mos Def playing Ford Prefect would make my head asplode.

    4. Re:Dear Mods, Taco, anybody by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Why? Sounds like a great plot to me. I'd be willing to pay money to see it fully executed. Bonus points if they add equilibrium (the movie) and cheech and chong and the diskworld in the mix. And yes, I haven't been taking my meds ;).

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  83. Proof of what they are - 3D! by scotts13 · · Score: 1

    Sooo last decade. It's 2011, what's next?

  84. Meanwhile... by fabioalcor · · Score: 1

    - Tired to see me again and again, Mr. Anderson?
    Agent Smith

  85. Please, Hollywood...Take My Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize that by the time Harry Knowles and his crew finish frothing over this, it won't matter if the Wachowski's film two hours of Keanu staring at a sandwich, we'll all go see it.
    Well...I will.

  86. Wow... Slashdotter butt-hurt over movies? by eepok · · Score: 1

    That's pretty surprising, to be honest. I thought the only things they were en masse hateful of, cinema-wise, were the attempts of George Lucas to constantly profit on his first 3 Star Wars movies over and over again.

    I subscribe to the idea that the Matrix Trilogy is indeed a great trilogy, but... only if you don't consider it a trilogy. Why? Because to fully understand the Matrix story, you not only have to have seen The Animatrix (short series of animated Matrix stories that directly tie into films 2 and 3), but played the video game "Enter the Matrix" which has quite a bit of cinematic cut-scenes (movie quality) that fill in a TON of holes in the first sequel, second film.

    If you were to watch it all in this order:
    1) Movie 1
    2) Movie 2
    3) Enter the Matrix
    4) Animatrix
    5) Movie 3

    I'm pretty sure your opinion would be quite favorable.

    While I understand that lots of people hated 2 and 3 because they had almost nothing to do with the original story line, that story just ended-- all stop. Some people are content with that while others, like myself, HATE it when a story ends with a giant climax and refrains from describing what happened with life afterwards. I mean, come on, Neo kills agents and surely makes the machine consider humans as a threat... THE END.

    Note: I love shows/stories that ARE an afterward. The show "Jericho" was all an afterward. World War Z is one giant afterward. The story of the Matrix would have been shallow crap if it wasn't for all the story development that came after.

  87. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this is just a buzzinga..

  88. I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's what I thought too. They were still in the matrix. How else could Smith move from one to the other? HE'S A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAM.

    And it only makes sense. The mystery guy they refer to in the first Matrix who "freed the first of us" and could "reshape the matrix to how he wished". Remember him? When he freed the first of the resistance fighters, who was piloting a ship to catch them and keep them from drowning??? You've got a chicken-and-the-egg problem there. I thought it was a given that they were still in the matrix.

    My third movie would have had Neo be the first guy to figure that out - the "outside world" is still the matrix. The matrix does nothing but generate realities to keep you from questioning where you are. And the reason why the matrix is doing this? What's the point?

    Earth was destroyed in a war with the machines and the machines won. But they're not the bad guys. We got scared and fired first, nuked them and made the world inhospitable to humans. The machines hold no animosity towards us. The situation saddened them, they understand how we could be scared and do such a thing, and they don't hold it against us. In a way they think of us as parents and believe we are worth saving. So they made a colony ship to send the surviving humans to another habitable world. They don't want us to die, but they realize we can't live together because of human nature. But unfortunately it will take eons to make the trip. So they made a people farm, and a matrix to keep us from going bonkers on the long trip to our new home.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      So long as the Matrix 4 denies the Matrix 3 happened, I'm good.

      I'm with you on what my assumptions were for the third movie as well. It even made a lot of sense within the context of the other things said in the second and first movies.

      I wouldn't even mind if it turns out at the end of 2, Neo was captured and Matrix 3 was the reality the Matrix had made for him and 4 is him really escaping and realizing this.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    2. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought too. They were still in the matrix. How else could Smith move from one to the other? HE'S A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAM.

      The rationalization I came up with for that (which also addresses Agents needing to "replace" people in the Matrix) is that Agents are computer programs that actually run in human brains overriding the "local" personality when running (if true, this may also be true of the other programs that manifest as humans -- or human-like creatures -- in the Matrix, though that's less central to the idea.) But, Agents normally also need continuous connection to centralized resources in the Matrix to continue operating; the same liberty which freed Smith from from central control within the Matrix also is what made him able to function outside the Matrix.

    3. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

      like the rest of you, i'm surprised as well that the Wachowskis did not figure that the most sensible plot would have been the best one instead of the crap they bestowed upon us. i'm even more surprised it took them ~10 years to decide to cash in on another movie (whether it sucks or not). perhaps they got jealous of the great combat scenes and plot in Inception (especially with the thematic likenesses between Inception and the Matrix) and have taken it to heart...

    4. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      Nice. That's probably better than whatever they come up with.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    5. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is worse than that. Maybe the machines themselves are matrix constructs of some higher life form, BUT THEY ARE OK WITH THIS. Humans might mess it all up by questioning reality, so the machines made a matrix within a matrix to keep them away from the curtain. They only relented when it was clear that Smith was about to ruin everything just like a human would. Explains a lot, actually...that is rather depressing.

    6. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by sjames · · Score: 1

      That makes a hell of a lot more sense than living Duracells.

    7. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Actually that movie exists already, pretty much. It's called The Thirteenth Floor.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    8. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Iryan · · Score: 1

      Agreed, my thoughts exactly.

    9. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by catbertz · · Score: 1

      Nice post, and plot concept! I've been pondering some of these aspects as well over the years. Representing the Matrix as operating on multiple levels of "reality" might come off as very reminiscent of Inception, but the Matrix movies played with this concept first. I really like your idea of a multigenerational journey to a new home, while cushioned in the Matrix. I think it might be interesting to explore the human survivors having to face actual reality on the new destination planet, unable to survive without the machines that most have been unaware of, and others have grown to hate and resist. The machines would plot how to introduce themselves, and explain the war and their actions to most humans asleep in the Matrix. Meanwhile, those already aware would be faced with the troubling notion of an alliance with the machines.

    10. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 2

      That's what I thought too. They were still in the matrix. How else could Smith move from one to the other? HE'S A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAM.

      Mmmm it seemed to me that the need to find "exit points" within the matrix implied that the humans were being digitized into programs that were then inserted into a running simulation. If you can convert a human into a computer program, download the program into a computer system and then later upload the program along with all the data it has accumulated back into the human brain then it isn't hard to believe a computer program could infect the human program and upload itself into the brain.

      Otherwise, if they are just interfacing to the matrix and still running everything with their organic brains then what's the big deal about getting out? If they are in trouble just cut the connection - tranquillize them if necessary, make them unconscious if necessary, to prevent shock - but it couldn't be *that* difficult if everything was running locally on the body... after all they took Neo out of the matrix the first time without him knowing what was going to happen.

      who was piloting a ship to catch them and keep them from drowning??? You've got a chicken-and-the-egg problem there.

      It's been a long time so maybe I'm not remembering properly but I thought that after the initial failures of the matrix the machines decided that it was necessary to have some humans alive outside the matrix... the ones "who just could not accept the program" or something like that... so it was the machines who freed the first human(s). After that on ending each iteration Zion is destroyed and "The One" gets to pick a small number of humans who will be freed and rebuild Zion - presumably it the machines again who are doing the freeing, but it could have been "The One" I suppose.

      My problem with all that was that the reasons given ("instabilities" etc.) for all this were completely unnecessary. The matrix is a full fledged simulation of a complex society - there would have to be some "progress" and eventually the humans would advance enough to be able to figure it out for themselves and possibly be able to do something about it. The only way to keep that from happening is to restart every so often.

      My third movie would have had Neo be the first guy to figure that out - the "outside world" is still the matrix.

      That what I thought he did... he could see the golden energy patterns in "reality" just the way he could see the green patterns in the matrix and he was learning to manipulate them... by the end he must have realized he was in some other matrix type system and that the machines were too... the question is - do the machines know it?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    11. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for planting seeds of expectation so awesome that the actual movie or movies can't help but to be even more of an epic disappointment than was already destined. Thank you ever so much.

      Someone does need to go ahead and actually make the movie you describe, though. If there is any justice in this world...

    12. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      This would have been a great movie.

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    13. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      Most of these storylines people come up with aren't what a true sequel should be like, and sadly matrix 3 didn't "get" that.

      Look.. the first Matrix was about alienation of the human spirit within current society, they just took a rather good twist regarding making that alienation we all feel sometimes mean that it's you realizing that your whole world isn't what it really is, i.e. what if it's a simulation? What would happen if someone realized and actually got out?

      This is why the first movie is excellent, because within that framework of "discovery" - they nail down the elements pretty well. The second and third movie failed because it's no longer about the human condition, just a slug-fest in trying to save some city which we have no real emotional interest in, and how? by destruction of course.

      They would have made a lot better movie if they had solved the conflict with Neo in the end becoming the Matrix, and thus becoming the architect, and overtaking it as the main operator for the whole matrix, and not to destroy it, but to be the catalyst of peace between machines and humans, sounds corny, but surrender of ideals on both sides between 2 opposing parties bent on mutual extinction is the only way out of such a conflict.

      So 2 and 3 suffered for its religious and prophetic propaganda, and the only way they could have made it work, is if Neo himself had made the twist be that prophets only spout their own wishes for the future, you have to make your own based on your own beliefs. Sadly this didn't happen.

      The thing is, if you make "action" in the action film become the sole purpose of a film, you'll make bad script choices, no matter who you are. I believe any more matrix movies will be horribly vapid in this regard.

    14. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by rekoil · · Score: 1

      Kind of like running VMWare inside of another VMWare machine then?

    15. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Defending the matrix sequels follows, why am I doing this: That's what I thought too. They were still in the matrix. How else could Smith move from one to the other? HE'S A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAM.
      Yea but since Neo can see into the Matrix maybe the outside Smith is some other robot but Neo just knows that it's Smith.

      And it only makes sense. The mystery guy they refer to in the first Matrix who "freed the first of us" and could "reshape the matrix to how he wished". Remember him? When he freed the first of the resistance fighters, who was piloting a ship to catch them and keep them from drowning??? You've got a chicken-and-the-egg problem there. I thought it was a given that they were still in the matrix.

      Maybe he realized he was in the Matrix and worked out his real muscles so he could swim genius! That's also quite consistent with Buddhism, the Matrix movies make a lot more sense if you fill in blanks with... aw who am I kidding they don't make sense.

      My third movie would have had Neo be the first guy to figure that out - the "outside world" is still the matrix. The matrix does nothing but generate realities to keep you from questioning where you are. And the reason why the matrix is doing this? What's the point?
      Well that'd be cool. Maybe it was an anti progress message much like the whole machines taking over thing, why must we move forward. Are we sure we're headed in the right direction? Things seem to be moving faster... I mean Buddhism's all about the joy of passivity, non thinking, non action. Maybe humanity will eventually confront the nature of life and be destroyed.

      My idea for a sequel had nano- techn (called Midiclorians) and elves and a dragons!

    16. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that is the movie they should have made.

    17. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought too. They were still in the matrix. How else could Smith move from one to the other? HE'S A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAM.

      He's cross-platform.

    18. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by bmcage · · Score: 1

      It's Inception all over again, better pay some royalties.

    19. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm defending this at all, but if the one who "freed the first of us" was never caught up in the matrix in the first place, then that solves the chicken-and-egg problem. Now getting into the matrix without being born with the implants could present some problems but those are mere technicalities. Also, the matrix-inside-the-matrix theme was explored in Inception and wasn't very good, IMO... even at the end of inception you still weren't clear if he was still dreaming or not (did the top fall after the screen blanked or not?), so you could never be sure that Neo finally finds the real world if he breaks through all the layers and hollywood would never allow that. Just you watch, Inception 2 will come out and the opening scene will be the top still spinning...

    20. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by billy_bob_boy · · Score: 1

      Now that would be a good movie

    21. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by sahonen · · Score: 2

      The mystery guy they refer to in the first Matrix who "freed the first of us" and could "reshape the matrix to how he wished". Remember him? When he freed the first of the resistance fighters, who was piloting a ship to catch them and keep them from drowning???

      At the end of Reloaded, The Architect tells Neo that the whole thing is a cycle where the machines repeatedly destroy Zion and whoever is The One at the time chooses a small group of people to start repopulating Zion with... I would assume that those people would have been chosen from the pod farm and delivered to Zion by the machines themselves, and could have simply woken up with The One standing over them saying "ohai, ur not in teh matricks anymore".

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    22. Re:I agree - they're still in the Matrix by GCPSoft · · Score: 1

      So... the only thing this guys need is a fu**ing totem, right?

  89. Re:What do you call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An Excel workbook

  90. Here's an idea. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    If you're going to make movies, make movies. Requiring people to go to multiple other media to understand the movies is a recipe for failure. Most people expect the series of movies to form a coherent storyline without any important 'missing bits'. I don't mind video games, comic books, or short animations, but they should add to the universe in such a way that it doesn't leave holes in the main story told in the 'primary media'.

    1. Re:Here's an idea. . . by eepok · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they were experimenting... just like in every other aspect of the film and story. Afterally, look at the place blatant attempts at viral marketing have now. (Teaser trailers 10 months before release, puzzles connecting to movie themes on websites, etc.)

      I still think they should

      (1) Make a browser-playable version of Enter the Matrix that can grant access to the cut-scenes.
      or
      (2) Make an all-encompassing DVD set that has the 3 movies, the Animatrix, and all the cut-scenes from the game with the option to watch it all in chronological order.

    2. Re:Here's an idea. . . by eepok · · Score: 1

      Looks like they have such a thing.... it's called "The Ultimate Matrix Collection".

  91. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3D is Hollywood-speak for "thin plot and pretty lights"

  92. LotR WAS filmed all at once... by denzacar · · Score: 1
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:LotR WAS filmed all at once... by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the nature of LotR story allowed that. HP's story does not since each story is a year apart I believe, not far enough apart to use a new actor, and not really close enough to get away with just make up given the characters start as kids.

    2. Re:LotR WAS filmed all at once... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so?
      Story allowed it, movie(s) was filmed all at once and shown to the public one part of the story at a time.
      Three parts - not three sequels. Just like the book.

      HP stories were written one at a time, filmed one at a time and shown one at a time over a decade.
      Further more, most of the later stories didn't yet exist at the time of the first movie.
      Sequels. In form, word and in every other way there is.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:LotR WAS filmed all at once... by axl917 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't make your original attempt at a point any less retarded.

  93. The first movie had transcendence by rsborg · · Score: 1

    That's a quality seen in very few Hollywood-made productions. The second and third were decent, but predictable action flicks.

    More on the transcendence is needed if the sequels were to match the original.

    Personally, I wish the sequels would go deeper into the "harvesting humans" but come from a more rational angle like the one portrayed in the Hyperion Cantos wherein the transportation portals were used to harvest human thought energy in the brain.

    Machines have plenty of energy (fusion/fission/solar), why "harvest" humans who are a net energy loss? Clearly for their unique processing power.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  94. Larry & Andy - read parent by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Earth was destroyed in a war with the machines and the machines won. But they're not the bad guys. We got scared and fired first, nuked them and made the world inhospitable to humans. The machines hold no animosity towards us. The situation saddened them, they understand how we could be scared and do such a thing, and they don't hold it against us. In a way they think of us as parents and believe we are worth saving. So they made a colony ship to send the surviving humans to another habitable world. They don't want us to die, but they realize we can't live together because of human nature. But unfortunately it will take eons to make the trip. So they made a people farm, and a matrix to keep us from going bonkers on the long trip to our new home.

    That's awesome - you may have given the Wachowskis a way out of the 2&3 mess. They should hire you as creative consultant.

    I found the ending of #3 depressing, since as soon as Neo turned into Magic Glowy Neo, it was given that he'd never escaped The Matrix. Y'know, because humans can't actually do that.

    But I think as obvious as that was, almost everybody missed it.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  95. Also... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It is a single story. With a single beginning and a single conclusion.
    Like the book it was made from.

    Harry Potter movies are all (except the last two) "one story per film" deal.
    You know... more like Indiana Jones and less like Star Wars. The difference being that the Empire Strikes Back leaves the story hanging unresolved.

    Each Harry Potter and each Indiana Jones in contrast could be the ending of the series.
    Oh sure. If you are a fan you are emotionally invested into further stories but as a casual observer you can be satisfied with just one.
    ANY one.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  96. what ending? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    At the end of the 3rd one, it was clear the story line was finished, I wonder how they plan to bring back the characters.

  97. Plot Idea? by Androclese · · Score: 1

    Is this where we find that Neo is from the Planet Zeist?

  98. I remember a joke title that I wish they'd use by mbourgon · · Score: 1

    Years ago people were 'shopping movie posters, and my fave:

    The Matrix Reborn

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  99. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like for many of you the movies flew right over your heads. You should check this out.

    http://www.matrixresolutions.com/

  100. Yes. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    Actually, that's why I'm looking forward to Matrix 4. Whatever they do it will be entertaining. Either they actually write a decent movie and ignore the worst parts of parts 2 and 3 and we end up with something that can be called a worthy sequel to part 1. Or they create a train wreck that appeals to the bad movie crowd. Either way we win.

    Of course they could create a solidly mediocre movie that appeals to no one. That's the only remaining danger and I hope it won't come to pass.


    Actually, they should make it like Speed Racer. Unneccessary special effects up the wazoo, a story that doesn't make sense but doesn't need to and John Goodman beating the snot out of some ninjas. The Matrix universe is a lost cause anyway so let's just make a movie that dares to be stupid. In fact, put it right on the poster: "Matrix Re-violenced. The machines thought they had won the war - but they never expected us to use violence!"

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  101. Safe by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    PLEASE erase this post before someone from Hollywood reads it. PLEASE.

    Relax dude, Everybody knows that nobody in Hollywood is smart enough to know how to read,,,

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  102. Real ending by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Dude, I thought at the end of 2 that they were going to go with a "you idiot, they're still in the matrix, the solution to people not being able to handle it was just to fool them into thinking they had escaped so they'd stop fighting it" approach.

    I always thought the most awesome ending for the trilogy would be if they showed the architect and the oracle talking at the end of the film, and then do a slow fade to a shot of Neo still in his little cocoon, plugged into the matrix, implying that the whole adventure was just a simulation and another level of control. It would have been an awesomely black ending that would have made up for all the goofiness in the second and third film.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Real ending by markxz · · Score: 1

      That would be similar to the ending of Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

      The studio wanted to release a version of Brazil (known as the Sheinberg, or "love conquers all" version) which omitted the final shot.

  103. What I liked about The Matrix 1 by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    What I like about The Matrix 1:
    - innovative cinematography (not just bullet-time, but the fish-eye lens look in the interrogation room, the roof chase scene)
    - how the story started tightly packed and unraveled as it went, with mind-blowing revelations along the way
    - how they continually illustrated, in a sort of build-up, the power of the agents
    - it made you think about the real world and how plausible the matrix could be
    - Keanu's "whoa", surfer-dude personality really fit the character as his eyes were opened to the truth
    - Morpheus and Agent Smith's manner of speaking
    - the first scene with the Oracle (vase breaking, etc.)

    It was just an awesome movie... I hadn't felt that way watching a movie since watching Terminator 2 for the first time.

    Matrix 2 and 3 were just okay for me. I'm optimistic about 4 and 5, but I hope they really try and innovate again, take the story in new directions (some of the comments on this thread sound really interesting).

  104. Might I suggest a title? by NoEvidenZ · · Score: 1

    The Matrix Episode IV: A New Hope

  105. Not to sound like a troll but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I honestly liked the 2nd and 3rd movie. The first one was the best, sure, I was really blown away, it was amazing! I didn' t know at that time they would make sequels. When I saw the sequels (and then even spin-offs like the Animatrix), I was excited for the movies to grow more depth and take a direction. The first movie was ambiguous, and nice, all around AWESOMETASTIC movie but the rest of the movies added some kind of direction so that the Matrix world could gain depth in other aspects.
    During the 1st movie I wondered, "Where the hell is Zion?", "What will Neo do?" etc. etc. which, those questions were answered to me in the sequels. I'm GLAD they're making more movies, I do wonder what happened to Neo, am I the only one to notice that he did not die? Was I the only one to notice the allegation that the world they thought was "real" was just another Matrix shell? A virtualization within a virtualization within a virtualization? Therefore making the movie even trickier, and more involved???? Seriously guys, the first movie left me hanging, wanting to know more about this world, and what happened etc. The sequels made me want to know, what happened to Neo? What happened to the other Matrices and how was it that there were 5 different, same looking "Neos" before this one?

    As for the Star Wars movies and whatever else you guys complained about, you should stop being so damn judgmental. Again, the first three movies (the original Trilogy) was great, was ground-breaking, was all W0000ho000. I loved it, I fell in love with star wars and the whole franchise. I'm currently reading several Star Wars books. But to be honest, the best stuff, the best games/story-lines came out after the new trilogy.
    I watched all six of them the other day and while the new trilogy kept me in suspense and got me really interested (yes, even Clone Wars), the old Trilogy did not capture my attention as much. Don't get me wrong, I loved it, but i have to admit, I also loved the prequels too.
    I think a lot of people are hung up on stuff from "their" time and cannot accept change or the newness of things. Does it bother you that kids are enjoying the new Star Wars? Does it bother you that they made a cartoon Star Wars that's completely irrelevant to the old Trilogy? Seriously guys, get over this. Star Wars content will keep on coming, and it will keep on changing.

  106. May the light of day dispell this evil darkness by meerling · · Score: 1

    The 3rd movie pretty much pounded the wooden stake in pretty solidly, I can't imagine it reasonably coming back to suck even more. (But if it does, it will...)

  107. How can they do 4 and 5? by kimvette · · Score: 1

    How can they do The Matrix 4 and 5, when they never did a 2 or 3?

    Let me explain: I did see Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions, but those movies seemed to be a cheap ripoff of The Matrix, with the same cast and amazing visuals but with crappy plot and dialog. So, I consider it like Higlander: I am still waiting for them to produce a sequel. Highlander II was never made. Likewise, there was no Superman III or IV, no Rocky IV or V, and there was no Star Trek IV.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:How can they do 4 and 5? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Those are studio 'working titles'

      They'll probably be 'The Matrix: The Musical' and 'George Lucas' The Matrix: Christmas Special'

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  108. Kung fu computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    "The reason people hated it was because people who like physics based sci-fi are not comfortable with meta-physics and fantasy sci-fi..."

    The idea of an ultra-sophisticated system able to enslave the human race that can only be defeated by virtual-reality karate fighting was what did it for me.

    Yes it would be much better to have computers that spit sparks and say things like "This does not compute" before they explode. C'mon this is hollywood. Like always have to assume that what you see on screen is just some insane metaphor or the retelling of a legend filtered through error prone retelling for 1000 years.

    On top of this, it's an action comic. Of course computers systems must have karate fight. it would be pretty boring to watch otherwise.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  109. 4 & 5? Where's 2 & 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it.

  110. I know what was better than the two sequels....... by Terminus32 · · Score: 2

    THE ANIMATRIX! Hell yeah!!!

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  111. Rut Row by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like no one will be taking the red pill again anytime soon. Over the weekend, reports surfaced that during a talk at the London International School of Performing Arts, actor Keanu Reeves revealed, among many other things, that the Wachowskis had finished a two picture treatment for more "The Matrix" sequels with an eye to do it in 3D. One little problem however. Keanu Reeves never gave that talk. We reached out to reps for the actor and were told that "none of it is truehe did not speak nor get an award from the from the London International

  112. Re:What do you call by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

    A rank 3 tensor?

  113. Dallas the TV Series by rla3rd · · Score: 1

    Could we hope that 4 will start with Neo opening his eyes and realizing 2 and 3 were just a dream?

  114. That's the BEST part about it by mozumder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hated the first movie because it tried to present some sort of metaphysical philosophy to it, which was nothing new compared to Dark City, Bladerunner, Ghost in the Shell, etc.. (in fact, it was originally inspired by Ghost in the shell). Nice special FX, but no new ideas.

    When the second and third installments came out, i figured out that it WASN'T meant to be a preachy philosophical rant, and that it was only meant to lightly touch on the various ideas, as if you were going through a Philosophy 101 class, or shopping at a mall of Philosophy. Instead, it used anime inspiration as a vehicle for creating a just plain kick-ass action trilogy - a bit of existential philosophy from Ghost in the Shell, futuristic motorcycle racing like Akira, giant drilling machines attacking underground cities like Neon Genesis, high-flying fighting like Dragonball Z, and so much more.

    It wasn't meant to be taken as seriously as all the nerds took it. It was a light-hearted anime series in 3 movies. That is all.

    That's why the whole series was so brilliant.

    If you wanted a single philosophical narrative, there are plenty of other traditional, non-edgy sci-fi movies for that.

    1. Re:That's the BEST part about it by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      See, I have to disagree. If it weren't meant to be taken seriously, why was it so confusing and laden with (even buried in) symbolism.

      If it weren't taking itself so seriously, I think there would have been a whole lot less talking... not that any of them lacked for action.

      However, I have to say your theory makes a lot more sense.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:That's the BEST part about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hated the first, yet you watched the second and third installments.

      Me thinks you need to understand what the definition of "hate" is.

  115. Bad isn't just a hollywood formula its a pattern by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Many elements of a great film or story are accidental or gain from their vague nature - its the interpretative parts that make up good ART. Its intriguing and inspiring when done correctly. The genius is not in creating every perfect detail viewers notice its in knowing what to leave OUT (a somewhat similar concept to the importance of negative space - but this is mental negative space.)

    Star Wars benefited greatly by constraints and people standing up to an idiot producer with good general concepts who was not yet corrupted by commercial aspects of his profession. But also, in extending it even without the huge influences outside the art form you have a destructive pattern that emerges:

    Problem is that when making sequels an editing of the success occurs to try to maximize the good parts (in opinion) and even worse they try to please demographics by highlighting everything surveys point to. They lose contrast because the low points make the high points better. Usually when something is hugely popular the exact reasons are not known but it is dissected and the "good" parts are copied and they try to make them even bigger as if that will make the whole work better-- but it was the whole work that people liked and it was influenced by the elements less popular.

    The matrix had plenty of good philosophy tie ins as well as political etc-- it was fine on its own; it was asking a lot to meet that level and EXTEND it further. Animal Farm was a great book; Animal Farm 2 wouldn't likely have the depth of knowledge to draw from to make the connections and take it further at the same level - that is more difficult than doing the 1st one.

    Its all just a machine that uses plot books like the sitcoms and soaps do and highlights the elements the survey's said were "cool" largely just using the world previously imagined with quite often uncreative additions and extensions to the existing work.

    I wish somebody would make sequel versions of famious paintings to illustrate my point...

  116. Looks debunked by CHJacobsen · · Score: 1

    According to this source, circulating on twitter, it's been debunked.
    http://screenrant.com/matrix-4-5-bill-and-ted-3-keanu-reeves-rob-97796/

  117. Matrixism/Neoism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can almost guarantee that the plot will involve some contrivance of Neo coming back to see his followers inside and outside of the Matrix completely missing the point of what he did and why. It only makes sense in the Gnopstic tradition the films represent. It also makes sense as a critique of modern Christians and their guru. To quote Jim Gaffigan on the Protestant/Catholic conundrum “See those people over there with almost identical beliefs as mine? I want to kill them because my god is all about love!”

  118. Troubled careers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I ENJOYED THE MATRIX FILMS! The first one was the best but I loved the action sequences in part 2, and the special affects in part 3. They were entertaining! People complain about these movies but look at the 2nd Star wars trilogy! Talk about overrated, Part III was the best but Hayden Christensen's was as lousy as ever! Yet that series made record dollars, go figure? All because people love the original Star Wars and the characters.

    However, I am very skeptical of a part 4 & 5. As decent as the first 3 films were, they are bound to push it too far and make some really bad movies here. This could be rumours or the Brothers are desperate?

  119. Asking James Cameron about 3d? by johncandale · · Score: 2

    hey are planning to make the films in 3D and have already met with James Cameron to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the technology.

    Isn't that like asking Steve Jobs the advantages of Apple OS's, or asking the pope the advantages and disadvantages of Christianity? I.E Biased. Anyone who knows anything Cameron has said in the last several years knows he has drunk the 3d kool aid despite just about every other respected film editor, director and other technical film artist has explained why 3d sucks and always will with current tech.

  120. neonato by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

    "Larry" Fishburne will have to lose like a thousand pounds. Or maybe he wont. Maybe Chong Jr. wont stick his foot in his mouth asking for the moon. Maybe Neo upgrades to an Android phone. Shizzzz! Product placement crystal ball sayz it's an Iphone. *jajaja*

  121. Why Neo could sense/confound squidbots by weston · · Score: 1

    After all, THAT would at least have explained better why Neo was able to sense the damn squidbots and blow them up.

    Seems pretty clear to me why Neo could sense & blow up the squidbots: they're part of the machine network, connected to some master system ("the source") that activated when he visited the architect.

  122. Re:What do you call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call a 3D Matrix?

    hmm? Reality?

  123. Matrices all the way down by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    His powers just branched out into the "real world" layer of the Matrix, where all who thought they were free were still enslaved. He has to re-learn his skills in this second layer (...)

    Second layer? Ha!

    Zero. One. Infinity. It's Matrices all the way down.

    - Cheering for the Matrix since movie #1!

    --
    I lost my sig.
  124. How about Matrix Re-Imagined? by RichiH · · Score: 2

    Just pretend 2 & 3 never happened and tell the story again. Only this time, try to find a way that people who, at one point, could speak along with all roles in Matrix 1 by heart, can watch them more than approximately 1.5 times each.

  125. Suggested storyline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While they travel through the different layers of the matrix, they must perform a syncronized "kick" to get out to the real world!

  126. next plot by solarlux · · Score: 1

    I reread the 1-3 plot summaries at Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see where things go now that Trinity is dead, Neo has had his ‘real’-world eyes gouged before apparently dying(?) from his final sacrificial encounter with Smith in the matrix. And apparently the 3rd movie ended with the machines and humans at peace and with the Matrix intact (although all humans who want to be free were to be unplugged).

    My guess is the next Matrix plot will revolve around the ‘real world’ being yet another Matrix and perhaps Neo and Trinity are still alive in the ‘next layer up’. After a bunch of intense special effects, it’ll end with the philosophical implication that reality is simply an infinite regression of higher states – i.e., every state of being is nested by yet another ‘higher reality’.

    In that vein, a cool alternate ending to the movie Inception would have been for Mal (Leonardo DiCaprio’s wife), upon jumping off the building in her attempt to ‘wake up’ from the real world, indeed wakes up in a higher reality. She then continues to keep killing herself and increasingly progressing herself out of nested dream states. After a few hundred deaths, she goes crazy and takes up drinking.

    Or maybe that will be the sequel. Inception 2 and Matrix 4-5 will need to have a race to get released first.

  127. Stay Tooned... by helios17 · · Score: 1

    We'll see the announcement for the resurrection of Firefly any day now...

    --
    Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
  128. Yeah well... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    At least my mom and dad are not also my brother and sister.

    Say... how do you keep track of all that "who's who?"-stuff?
    I sure as fuck would find that confusing.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  129. Not another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of the same wooden actors and repetitive story, why not explore some other aspect of this Matrix. If it is indeed a matrix, there must be others in it