The Matrix: Resurrections

[Asura]

It’s that, at that point, the agents have been upgraded to the point where Neo, a virtual god at the end of the first movie with the ability to deconstruct agents who could kick Morpheus’ ass, had to go back to beating them up and yet Morpheus, who couldn’t beat the original agents, could now hold his own against them. But really, it’s just that they wanted more fights.

Yeah; I always assumed that Neo's powers hit their first peak at the end of the first movie, as an instinctive thing, and after that, he can't do those things on a whim. He's still more powerful than he was, but not quite the virtual god as he was portrayed in the closing moments of The Matrix. Then, he has to go back to fighting because he's fighting 3 agents simultaneously.

But you're bang-on that this isn't in the text. It's a post-rationalisation. The original was made without clear provision of the existence of sequels, and in trying to have an amazing moment, it over-reached.

But how. Honestly, I remember seeing the first movie in the cinema and that moment, where Neo "sees the code"... Honestly that's movie magic. Goosebumps. Weirdly I kinda forgive all of the sins of the franchise just for that one bit, and similar to my point above, I don't think they ever quite reached those heights again (I think there was a conscious attempt, the bit in Revolutions where they see the sky, but it didn't hit that note).

[Dogg Thang]

Honestly, I remember seeing the first movie in the cinema and that moment, where Neo "sees the code"... Honestly that's movie magic. Goosebumps.

Yep. I think that ending moment of the first movie is absolutely incredible and then Neo's speech at the end just really wrapped it up perfectly. It's an incredible ending.

And I guess for me it's in the undoing of that, without really being earned (it really was just waved away with that single word "upgrades"), that made all the other sins of the sequels harder to take. I found that, just for me, they struggled to deliver a strong story because they had actually wrapped up the original so well. Instead of building on it and taking us on a journey from there, they undid it and gave us the Architect speech. And I feel like the general consensus is that it would have been very difficult to actually deliver on that ending and, yep, it would have been but there were so many ways they could have done it while keeping Neo as superpowered as he was at the end of the first film because the next challenge and awesomeness teased at the end of that first movie is: what happens to the world when everyone learns they can break the rules? That was an intriguing premise and we never got to see it.

[Neon Ignition]

Rewatching the original it's kind of amazing how low key a film it is. There's not really much action in it and the sequence that wraps the film up is the kind of thing where the majority of it could have taken place an hour before and not be out of place given it's actually very grounded. It would be very easy too to pass Neo's code moment as a direct reaction to Trinity and like Asura says, something he still couldn't do on command, but that ending shot of Neo flying like Superman really ends the film on the wrong note. I'm in the camp that finds that shot to be something that spoils and cheeses up a solid ending.

With Reloaded and Revolutions the biggest issue in the room is definitely the decision to make them back to back. They should have just taken their time and made a more refined Reloaded, then had years more to make Revolutions. There really was no need to rush the ending the way they did and it's still amazing studios still attempt back to back filming given how rarely it works out well.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, I think you're right and I remember thinking that at the time, largely coming out of Reloaded having enjoyed sequences but ultimately feeling unsatisfied. And I feel like it wasn't the only film series around that time that did something similar? I don't know but I don't think The Matrix was the only one. Thing is, movie length storytelling is really difficult. I've said it before but the fact that some films turn out great is like a little miracle each time. Trying to spread that story over two films? That's way, way harder. So I know it wasn't an easy task and I do have to acknowledge some great sequences but I think, at least for my own viewing experience, it felt like it beat them and I feel like they actually needed to be reigned in my producers or whoever.

[Asura]

And I feel like it wasn't the only film series around that time that did something similar?

Am I over-simplifying here, or did The Matrix sequels kick off the Hollywood trend of filming multiple sequels on the production schedule of one, longer movie?

Star Wars Empire & Jedi didn't do this. Indiana Jones didn't do this. The Rocky movies didn't. The Matrix sequels are the first movies I remember doing it.

EDIT: Ah, wait, Lord of the Rings. Though I wonder if being based on a pre-existing story impacts that a bit.

[Neon Ignition]

Back to the Future Part II and Part III had done it but they pre-dated Matrix by so many years they definitely weren't an inspiration. It wouldn't surprise me if part of it was just Warner's being greedy and throwing money at the Wachowski's who were probably bowled over by the success and doors flung open for them. Hopefully Resurrections benefits from the time it's been able to gestate for.

Just googled it and there are quite a few prior back to back films but nothing of the blockbuster scale bar BTTF and Superman and Superman II.

[Paddy]

Its an interesting subject to cover (it makes sense from a production POV but do actors, directors and crew get burned out dedicating so much time to creating two films for a series at once?)

[Asura]

Its an interesting subject to cover (it makes sense from a production POV but do actors, directors and crew get burned out dedicating so much time to creating two films for a series at once?)

I'd be interested to know, too.

Like... It might be a "getting into the groove" thing. If you film the two movies apart, everyone's got to get assembled, do the stuff, act, everything... Then take a break for a year, then pull together and do it all again. Is it one of those things where maybe taking a couple of weeks off then coming straight back to it is better?

Because if you film the movies apart, presumably most of the crew will finish their work on a movie, take a short break then immediately look for another project anyway. Hell, if they're a salaried employee of a special effects house they might not even take much of a break.

[Neon Ignition]

There's surprising little out there on the reasoning behind the decision. The closest I've seen is speculation that Warner Bros was concerned about the costs of making the two films and having seen what New Line was accomplishing with LOTR decided that making them together was more cost effective

[Neon Ignition]

New poster:

Embedded Tweet

[Yakumo]

Talking of Matrix. I was watching Nightmare on Elm Street 3 last night. There was a tall dark orderly working in the kids psychiatric home. As I kept watching I was thinking, "who is this dude? The way he speaks is familiar.". Then it hit me. "it's bloody Morpheus!". Yep, one of Mr. Fishburne's early roles.

[Neon Ignition]

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[Yakumo]

Saw an ad for this on TV last night. I got really excited then it said, coming December 14th or something like that.

[randombs]

Saw an ad for this on TV last night. I got really excited then it said, coming December 14th or something like that.

The trailer before Eternals said December 17th. Earlier than the US!

[Yakumo]

The trailer before Eternals said December 17th. Earlier than the US!

Ah, 17th. Yes. That's a Friday. Makes sense. At least I know what I'm doing that night