The Matrix

"If I have one loud complaint about Resurrections it's that they didn't get Weaving back."

How could they? He was deleted. He fulfulled the purpose for which he was made and his runtime ended.

They managed to bring him back after he was exploded at the end of the first film, but I don't think such an excuse could be made again. Plus, Weaving is now considerably older, with white hair and everything. It's a cool look, but why would the Agent have aged?

Now, if you cast him as the Architect... If Smith hated the Matrix so much, why not give him the opportunity to do a better job?

I love Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith, but bringing him back along with the rest of the cast would serve only to emphasize how the nostalgia-fueled Hollywood content algorithm continues to milk its sacred cows. Maybe the film will try to be all self-aware and subversive about that idea, but it grotesquely failed with Resurrections, at least in my opinion.

More specifically, it started out strong in the first act but fizzled out almost completely by the end. I read the core message as, "We're as tired of this shit as you are, so just leave us the hell alone." Continuing to sequelize the same characters and plots would be the worst possible way to proceed.

Give us something new, please. Take advantage of all that world-building you were doing.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 3rd 2024 at 3:47:03 PM

I believe "ending the franchise forever" was actually the motivation for Lana W., since Warner Bros. threatened to make another film whether the sibs were involved or not.

Well, then that backfired badly.

But in Resurrections they got another actor to play Smith, didn't they? He even did The Voice for a bit, but stopped halfway through the movie for some reason.

I love the idea of Hugo Weaving/Smith as the Architect, by the way. It's so good, I'm going to be disappointed when they don't do it.

Two words: Fan. Fiction.

Honestly, they should take a few nods from the Top Gun: Maverick school of "how to successfully do a legacy sequel".

Wait two decades then appeal to the Alt Right?

God, I'm getting tired of that term.

Either it's used to insist that everyone it's used with are deranged extremists, or it's applied to practically everyone.

Obviously not.

I mean in terms of being respectful to the original, progressing the story of the hero in a satisfying manner, not short-changing him for the sake of the new heroes, going above and beyond what the original did, while also fixing any problems some may have had with it.

Oh yeah, and to not let meta-commentary come at the expense of neglecting the action.

I mean top gun was more pop corn incline and didnt have three movies before it to said anything else.

There is some issue with resurrection like all the worldbulding only to try to give a definite ending feel very out of place.

Like it feel the movie want to have more matrix but also finish it all of it.

Valid, all above.

The Matrix Resurrections... so what will this one be called? Matrix... Tax Returns?

I’m thinking it’ll be more of a spin-off and they can drop the “The Matrix Re_______” naming convention.

Or they call it The Matrix Revelations.

Edited by BigBadShadow25 on Apr 4th 2024 at 12:24:29 PM

TBF that didnt stop the Merovingian who is still played by Lambert Wilson (who is 2 years older than Weaving is)

I don't really feel the sympathy for the "We're making more Matrix movies with or without you" for the Wachowskis that I think I'm supposed to. People heavily follow the creation of movies these days; In that alternate universe, fans would've learned the Wachowskis weren't involved and it would've put up red flags. They even could've publicly said they have nothing to do with the movie and don't endorse it.

Honestly, I disagree. The 100, no 1,000, no maybe 5,000 likes on Reddit or retweets on X that you might see agreeing that a Wachowski-less Matrix wouldn't be worth watching, or maybe the 10-30 people who agree with us on any given subject about pop culture on TV Tropes ... are a microcosm of the amount of people who will casually go to see movies because their kids, partners, or friends want to go see them.

In that alternate universe some would go anyway for hate-watching purposes. Some would go out of social obligation. Some would not see it then bellyache about the leaks/reviews they read. Some will go see it because Death of the Author. You can't see a commercial with Keanu Reeves with his John Wick/Johnny Silverhand hair playing Neo again and not be a little excited.

Regardless the movie would still be coming out to some manner of audience. Put in that position I can feel some sympathy towards watching your creation get wrangled through a board room of new-age executives vs you having some amount of creative control. ^note Netflixbender, Metal Gear 3 Remake, and Harry Potter are loud examples of the original creators no longer being involved/problematic creators being involved and fans still engaging with the work. Though I do wonder if Keanu or Carrie would have stayed on.

Edited by FOFD on Apr 4th 2024 at 3:04:36 PM

Maybe. You've got a point with your counter examples, I guess I don't really know why in this instance I feel apathetic to it. Maybe its the meta jabs at itself?

I assumed that Lana was taking the view that she might as well be involved because otherwise they'd mutilate her atr.

At the very least, I do think it is good that they brought in a new director, especially one like Drew Goddard. I always felt that the series could use some new blood. Heck, it worked for TGM.

Now let's see if Goddard can pull it off as well as Joseph Kosinski did for that series.

The original Matrix still stands as a well-made, self-contained story but the curiosity of every sequel is not just the Sequel Escalation but it seemed the Wachowskis were doing it for their own amusement and almost encouraged backlash for their self-indulgence (the infamous Architect scene of Reloaded is almost incomprehensible with the wordplay, but you still get the points being made and it's memorable in how dense it was). So whatever your opinion of those films may be, the filmmakers had a ball making them.

The core idea of The Matrix is still exciting and open to crazy ideas for the right people, but like a number of franchises the question is can it capture those new ideas or is the heart of the franchise buried in the Wachowski's, flaws included?

While I haven't seen it, I heard that Matrix Ressurections had pretty shitty fight coreography for a Matrix movie, so hopefully they find someone who can help on that front.

Say what you will about Matrix 2 and 3 as stories, but their fights are still iconic, like the Neo vs Thousands of Agent Smith clones from Reloaded and the entire last fight from Revolutions, which is so iconic that FF 7 Advent Children outright ripped it off for the Cloud vs Sephiroth fight.

Edited by Demongodofchaos2 on Apr 5th 2024 at 11:59:55 AM

You mean The Matrix Resurrections. Yes, its fight choreography was pretty dull compared to the other ones. Supposedly that was due in part to Keanu Reeves having less time to train, but they managed to make it work in-story because the whole idea is that he's older and weaker than he used to be. When life hands you lemons... have the protagonist force-push enemies instead of beat them up, I guess.

They haven't made one with the "Revelations" subtitle, but I'm sure it's coming.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 5th 2024 at 10:42:46 AM

I was thinking that both The Phantom Menace and The Matrix set a high water mark where truly spectacular action has the actors training for the choreography for like 4 months to pull it off. Other films will have their actors boast of training to get in shape but the action scenes are heavily improvised on the day, creating a stilted, unfocused sequence that compensates with fast editing.

Also somewhat amusing is that John Wick came from The Matrix stunt team being promoted to director and producer, while a Matrix sequel had Keanu keeping his John Wick look because that was his next film.