Movies Should The Matrix been a standalone movie?

[Takes Two To Tango]

Now that there planning to make a fourth which I think will be shitty. And with the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were not even close to living up to the original. I wonder why they even bothered making these movies. I know the easy answer is the money they generated from making more. But they just ruined what would have been a perfect ending to a movie. And just let us use our imagination to see what would happen after.

Do you think The Matrix should of been a standalone movie?

 

[Threetrees]

Obviously

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Obvoiusly

True, will see what the votes says.

 

[Mau]

You already have your answer.

 

[5crew]

It's really difficult. While the sequels aren't really good, it did end the plot well. Because in the first film, Samuel L Jackson did mentioned humans are tapped by the machines as battery. But it only end with Neo killing the agents, not freeing the humans. So the sequels were warranted, plot-wise imo.

 

[Threetrees]

It's really difficult. While the sequels aren't really good, it did end the plot well. Because in the first film, Samuel L Jackson did mentioned humans are tapped by the machines as battery. But it only end with Neo killing the agents, not freeing the humans. So the sequels were warranted, plot-wise imo.

I see your point.
The end of the first movie implies he's going to succeed in freeing the humans though. It's almost a stronger conclusion to leave the how to the imagination.

 

[jerzey devil]

It still can be if you choose to ignore what came after it.

 

[John Mabrey]

It's really difficult. While the sequels aren't really good, it did end the plot well. Because in the first film, Samuel L Jackson did mentioned humans are tapped by the machines as battery. But it only end with Neo killing the agents, not freeing the humans. So the sequels were warranted, plot-wise imo.

Samuel l.jackson?

 

[John Mabrey]

Bend the spoon motherfucker!

 

[syct23]

Should Star Wars have been a stand alone..

 

[Deleted member 110072]

It's really difficult. While the sequels aren't really good, it did end the plot well. Because in the first film, Samuel L Jackson did mentioned humans are tapped by the machines as battery. But it only end with Neo killing the agents, not freeing the humans. So the sequels were warranted, plot-wise imo.

I think good sequels could potentially have been made and Reloaded is IMHO about half a good film from orgasm cake until metaphysical fried chicken but should probably have stuck with that kind of plot. SImpler pulpy plot keeping the focus in the matrix and confined to a small ship, the Zion material was just dull and the attempts at gradure didn't really come off for me.

 

[5crew]

implies he's going to succeed in freeing the humans though. It's almost a stronger conclusion to leave the how to the imagination.

Yeah, this make sense too, especially after seeing how the sequels went.

Samuel l.jackson?

Watch the first 30s of the below two videos.




EDIT:

I think good sequels could potentially have been made and Reloaded is IMHO about half a good film from orgasm cake until metaphysical fried chicken but probably needed at least some imput from elsewhere to pull it off.

Hahaha.. I know.. it was a joke I tried to make.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Should Star Wars have been a stand alone..

Yes it should of been a standalone trilogy that's for sure. No need with the prequels and those next episodes.

 

[5crew]

SImpler pulpy plot keeping the focus in the matrix and confined to a small ship, the Zion material was just dull and the attempts at gradure didn't really come off for me.

I fully agree with this. They went all style and "oversubstance" with the slow-mo and philosophy that mindfucked the writers themselves. The slow-mo thingy did made the first film extremely famous so I get why they want to top that. But the Engineer explaining and Oracle trying to explain is bad.

I agree with @Threetrees that sometimes they should let the audiences fill in the blanks instead of trying to spoon feed us. The two sequels did a bad job while attempting that as well. I seriously doubt the writers understood some of the dialogues they wrote. Just trying to complicate things.

 

[all caps]

Never seen it @John Mabrey

 

[General_Speckz]

I think they wrote themselves into a corner. The first matrix was an obvious existential crisis, and the wachowskis were faced with tying everything back to God without being able to because it would offend a lot of religious people.

The oracle being a "program" also made zero sense. Prophecy shouldnt have been relegated to an ordinary machine program because it is 100% deterministic. I suppose you could say something like 99.9999999% deterministic because undoubtedly cosmic rays and other radiation will inevitably cause a blip here or there.

They could have made her have some existence based on a quantum number generator and I would have accepted it, though. But, I'm not sure that technology was popular or even existed back in 1999.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I fully agree with this. They went all style and "oversubstance" with the slow-mo and philosophy that mindfucked the writers themselves. The slow-mo thingy did made the first film extremely famous so I get why they want to top that. But the Engineer explaining and Oracle trying to explain is bad.

I agree with @Threetrees that sometimes they should let the audiences fill in the blanks instead of trying to spoon feed us. The two sequels did a bad job while attempting that as well. I seriously doubt the writers understood some of the dialogues they wrote. Just trying to complicate things.

The problem I suspect is that they bought there own hype a bit too much. The original film is basically a cool heroic action romance with a bit of philosophical window dressing but it proved so popular you had people latching onto the latter as some kind of great substance. They entered some confused middle ground between being John Woo and Andrei Tarkovsky dispite obviously being way out of their depth with the latter.

There was I think a lot of stuff in the sequels in terms of fun pulpy ideas that could have been put to better simpler use. I spose the other main weakness is Zion, its just a fundamentally dull place not the interesting mysterious exotic place most imagined.

 

[5crew]

@moreorless87
Similar to the TV series Lost. The writers in both franchise wrote themselves into the wall and had to over explained.
That said, after 20 years, there are still youtube videos trying to help the writers explains things we "missed" or misunderstood. I guess if we look at it that way, it's a success?

EDIT:
They definitely bought into their own hype. But probably the studios fault, it's all about the money.

I doubt the studios care if the franchise went to shit as long as they made money. Looking at modern day films, there are tons of shitty films that make tons at the box office while films with good script, plot and dialogue barely make their budget back. Ultimately, the studios goes for the former. I'm sure studios prefer shit films that make money than Critics/audience praised films that made loss.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Yes. Two wasn't terrible, but I left the theater saying, "I'm not gonna see the third one."

 

[I'm Shawn Spencer]

The problem with the sequels was that they rushed into making them.

That first movie was great, and the script was nearly perfect. You can tell they'd been working on that thing for years.

If they'd taken their time and took like 10 years to perfect the sequel's script, then done the movies, they probably would've been great, too. But I figure the studio wanted that money so they rushed the sequels.




And Morgan Freeman was great as Morpheus.