Not sure if she was trying to burn cash on purpose as performance art but I wouldn't put it past her either
But the film we saw in theaters is not the quality version of that meta-textual film, it is often very confusing with poor writing, execrable action scenes, and plot that is far less clever than its ambitions. Some of the dialogue sounded like the crummy lines from modern Hollywood superhero and other blockbuster movies, a far cry from the at least tonally-consistent writing of the original films.
I think I looked past it when it came out because I was a kid, and the world building was interesting to me.
This third sequel is knowingly a self-parody, but imo its sins are a mix of the old (ponderous self-seriousness) and the new (unsubtle modern blockbuster cringe- "hey did you hear that everyone who served with him died?" "I was... shook."). This new one just feels lacking in the taste or sophistication of the previous ones.
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/11/keanu-reeves-matrix-4-rehe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbXSLzrs38Y
https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/rqh76p/the_matrix_4...
That aside, I do think the pandemic likely messed a whole lot of the production, which explains how the action got so lackluster.
The movies and the production of them? Yes.
The concept and story? No.
> Did she honestly ruin it on purpose?
Yes. I think she did.
One thing I admire about the Wachowskis is their insane ambition. You either hate it or love it but let's not pretend like they were just lucky.
Tons of people loved the matrix, just let it be.
Even from a "cinematic universe" or "canon" perspective I don't recognize its ability to affect the previous story; we're living in a rapidly accelerating era of media where escapism commands huge money and nostalgia is king; who's to say five or ten years down the line someone else might not make a new Matrix property and retcon the story as told in this one? Would be funny if Lilly Wachowski was the one to do that.
I’m not sure the Wachowski brand has improved after this.
What kind of person (allegedly) sinks a movie franchise out of spite?
How about… Not do that and put effort into everything you do?
IDK. Not sure I buy this and think it’s possible the Wachowskis that made the first movies are gone, and this was a good effort. ♬don’t let money change ya♬.
it's not spite. She didn't "sink" it because she was spiteful, she wanted to say something about the films and her work and chose to deconstruct the act of making a sequel to a trilogy after 20 years. It's their art, they can do what they want with it.
Their work since Matrix has always been avant-guard (Cloud Atlas is barely a film in any normal sense, a Speed Racer film by anyone else isn't _that_) they were never coming back to make another stock science-fiction action film.
The real question is, how did Warner green-light the script and release knowing that it was going say all those things.
Frankly I hope I can just forget the fourth movie, because I don't want to watch the first movie knowing that Neo ends up a doddering old pilled-up nutter and Trinity's a cookie cutter soccer mom with barely a bike shop. (and of course, that's silly, because they didn't really end up that way, they were put into that way--at great expense--for why again? stupid plot. Stupid, stupid plot.)
Self depreciation is fine for WB. Half the jokes in the new Space Jam are meta self-depreciation. (not funny jokes, but jokes nonetheless)
Is it spite to not want your baby to become another Marvel/Star Wars clusterjerk? Perhaps it is, but I think she's allowed that. I don't think the world needs more of those, but it will always need more art and critique.
Everyone on here dancing around that possibility due to...reasons.
I don’t see this movie as an outlier. TV and Film have been in trouble since BLM and now with China buying AMC, the prospects don’t look good.
As as a (former) movie goer I’ve seen nothing but shit for the last 2 years. I now suspect shit is the new normal. I’m not paying for shit… it’s that simple. In other words, I agree with you.
The new Morpheus was just nothing. What a waste. Really, the casting in the original was one of the things that made it. Agent Smith, the Architect, each of these actors looked and sounded like their character. The casting in the new Matrix was just all over the place. Never did care for Trinity though.
New Neo is blue haired girl. New Trinity is tattooed girl. New Neo and New Trinity are not yet lovers (which appeases the CCP) but the final scene shows them embracing behind Old Neo/Trinity.
I don’t think I read that wrong and thought it was pretty obvious?
It’s simply one in a long line of offerings from Hollywood that is not meeting viewer expectations. I see it as a cumulative effect.
... And my reasons are clear.
I can imagine areas where censorship could lead to increased profitability. Just as I can imagine where it can lead to losses. The Film industry I put firmly in the losses category.
Due you think continued/increased censorship will be good/profitable for the film industry?
In summary, the movies I've seen that suck tend to just suck. Usually it's because they're way too long, or they don't tell a story very well, or the plot is just rehashed and contrived. James Bond was great, 1917 etc, but others just seem uninspired. To make a case that censorship is the reason, I think you'd need be annoyed with specific aspects of a production, rather than the entire thing.
I think there's an issue on the internet of people wanting to discuss somewhat contentious issues that are assumed to be followed by everyone, like CCP stuff or immigration or trans issues or whatever, but most people just don't care or aren't in that bubble, so it tend to come across as a bit sus unless you can tie it in together and make a reasonable case for it.
So I don't know why you thought it was amazing.
Totally believable to me that the filmmakers just “dialed-it-in” for a pile of money without caring for the story. After all they were already “done” after the first movie. Too bad. Tragically, that same pile of money could have funded a dozen innovative new filmmakers and actors with fresh stories to tell.
Not unlike the latest Spiderman with how much it tried to reference from the others in the collection, but the constant flashovers to the originals were a bit exhausting.
Was tough to watch. I mean, I got it…but it was tough to watch.
Or it could just be these tweets: https://twitter.com/lilly_wachowski/status/12621047544963399...
short answer: the matrix is gender.
but it also represents any social construct pretty generically, and that's why there's so much confusion.
long answer: duck duck go matrix transgender.
also, like, when a creator tells you their work means a thing, just take them at their word. they would know. you can criticize how well or how poorly it conveys the meaning, or explore what subterfuge is concealed within, but questioning explicit intent is a bit silly.
This is reductive.
You advocate a highly intentionalist interpretation of a work - the author says it means this, so that's what it means.
'jevoten and others in this thread advocate a more formalist interpretation - the meaning lies in what is written.
I drew your attention to a more reader-focused perspective - that meaning comes from the reader's experience of the work, not the work or the author.
To say "they would know" is to sidestep this entire discussion and suggest that there's some objectively correct way of interpreting a text and that correct way is intentionalism. This is reductive because it ignores the reality that many people (theorists and non-theorists) don't put a whole lot of stock in authorial intent.
I'm not questioning their intent, I'm questioning whether they successfully expressed that intent in the movie.
Trans people noticed the parallels. I don't think they intended everyone would. They wanted to do more with it too. Switch's Matrix form was supposed to be male.
As Don Quixote once said "El Oh El"