I was reading somewhere that in the early script drafts, the crew actually made it all the way to Zion at the end, but since they were working with a budget of around $70 million, pulling that off just wasn't feasible.
If anyone actually wants to know what that original draft looked like, you'd probably have to track down Harry Knowles, since he had plenty of time to pore over the script during those two years before filming finally kicked off.
I honestly don't buy the idea that money was the driving force behind making "Reloaded" and "Revolutions"... I mean, when studios churn out sequels just to pad their bank accounts, they usually play it incredibly safe with a "minimal risk" philosophy. But with these films, the Wachowskis really put everything on the line and took some massive leaps of faith.
rapidstag74 said:Believe me, you don't need the Star Wars Expanded Universe to actually grasp what's going on in the movies. Honestly, I’d suggest staying far away from all that junk; if George Lucas isn't reading it, I certainly won't be either.
I think I'll give Animatrix a shot, but I really can't stand the idea that I have to watch Animatrix, play some video game, and jump through all these other little cash-grab hoops just to understand the actual film.
What I was trying to get at is that Animatrix and Enter the Matrix aren't just hollow money-makers; they actually flesh out the movie trilogy much more cohesively than the Star Wars Expanded Universe ever did.
rapidstag74 said:Heh, wouldn't they like that? 😁 I mean, who knows, maybe there's some other hidden solution tucked away inside the official Matrix branded headsets, t-shirts, or coffee mugs?
Anyway, enough of my rambling.
I honestly can't recommend watching *The Animatrix* enough if you actually want to wrap your head around this whole mess. In my humble opinion, the mythology of the Matrix—when you look at the films, the video games, the anime, and the comics (you can find them all on the official site)—is so much more cohesive and makes way more sense than, say, the *Star Wars*😈 Expanded Universe.
rapidstag74 said:Heh, wouldn't they like that? 😁 Maybe there’s still some secret solution tucked away inside the official Matrix branded hats, t-shirts, and coffee mugs?
Oh, you bet there is, because let's be honest—those hats, shirts, and mugs are basically the sacred icons of the evangelical neo-turbo-confuci-buddha-ism movement.😁
rapidstag74 said:There’s this one line from the first Matrix movie: "I'm going to show them a world without you." Man, I don't know, it honestly feels like Neo completely blanked on that line, and what was he thinking with the Wachowskis? Because we didn't actually get to see that world, and neither did the billions of other people who stayed stuck inside the simulation. What was the actual point of those two sequels? It definitely wasn't about liberating humanity from their chains. And here I was, being a total sucker, actually believing Neo was going to set everyone free.
The real takeaway is that it's all about compromise; since the machines didn't exactly come across as that evil when you look at the Animatrix: Second Renaissance parts 1 and 2.
If anyone is actually curious about the lore and why the Matrix was built in the first place, they should really check out those shorts—the whole mythology works so much better if you watch all three films, all nine of those animated shorts, and even play through the whole Enter the Matrix game.
Sophia Brown78 said:Like someone else mentioned earlier, they definitely had the concept down, but they just weren't quite sure how to actually execute it.
Honestly, I have this feeling that the whole mess didn't really stem from what was being said, but more from the way it was delivered. It felt like they were trying way too hard to boil everything down into these overly simplified, one-size-fits-all terms just so everyone could follow along—which ended up making them sound incredibly cliché when they could have been nuanced, and somehow totally confusing at the exact moments they should have kept things straightforward. 😢
Oh, and if we're being real, they probably could have gone a little easier on the ego, too.
damien said:Oh man, guys... I’m honestly starting to think I really should have sat down and watched Reloaded before this whole revolution started up. I don't know exactly what happens in the second part, but from what I gather, Oracle isn't actually a person, but some kind of AI or computer program? Or whatever you want to call it...
If you haven't seen Reloaded yet, you are seriously missing out on so much.
The whole concept of having a cloned Picard is actually pretty solid, and I have to say the main villain works well—that kid really leaned into the role, and the Scimitar looks fantastic... but...
...there's just a massive pile of unforgivable sloppiness here. At times, it honestly felt less like watching a finished film and more like sitting through some rough, unpolished draft rather than a legitimate, professional script.
Donna Nelson23 said:Yeah, I remember seeing "Trainman" translated once as "Conductor" and another time as "Accountant." Honestly, I don't think either one hits the mark, because I’m pretty sure this "Trainman" is just some gritty underground bum with yellow teeth who smells like he hasn't seen a shower in a decade.
BUT NOW SPOILERS
...and seriously, how on earth is a new Matrix supposed to come into existence if they've blown out EVERY single one of their batteries? I guess they must have some massive backup generator tucked away in a basement somewhere to keep things running until they can manufacture a whole new batch of humans to serve as power sources.
The Architect mentioned back in Reloaded that they have these little survival modes—which, if you ask me, was probably just his way of talking about a backup generator 😁 (as long as someone remembers to pour oil in there instead of gasoline, which is a mistake I learned the hard way during my time in the Army 🙂 .
rapidstag74 said:Are we actually talking about the same movie where Carrie-Anne Moss stars?
The rules of the Matrix can be bent, but they can't be broken. 😁
Oh man, we are definitely talking about the same flick. 😁
I feel like the previous movies had such well-placed bits of humor—like when the Oracle makes those little comments about Neo's intellectual prowess.
This one is just incredibly heavy; honestly, the only tiny spark of comedy I could find was that moment where someone says, "Honey, you actually *can* drive!" and I just had to laugh internally when they added, "But you scratched the paint job." 😁
Just to expand on what I said before: my main issue is that this third installment doesn't really offer anything fresh, since everything is basically just geared toward wrapping up the plot and tying up loose ends.
On its own, the movie doesn't quite hold up, but when you look at it as part of the whole trilogy, It's OK.
Well, there you have it... everything has finally wrapped up, and it all went down under a gorgeous sunset. : )
Here’s my first thought: I think Jessica Nguyen85 mentioned that the term revolution carries several different meanings, and one of them is actually "turning over" (which is exactly what the word revolution means etymologically). I feel like that’s precisely the point of the movie—the "wheel" turned and landed right back where it started. Sort of.
WATCH OUT!!! HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD
First off, here is what didn't quite land for me. The pacing is just... off. The drama feels almost like a flat line. That’s always the struggle with these kinds of trilogies; every single film that follows a linear path needs its own three-act structure, yet they also have to function as one massive three-act epic. In other words, each sequel has to perfectly balance being the buildup, the climax, and the payoff. Trying to sync all those moving parts is incredibly difficult, so I don't hold the Wachowskis too much blame for that.
Now, for what I actually enjoyed. There isn't a "Matrix within the Matrix," did I mention that? 😁 Okay, all jokes aside now… Heh... the directors didn't really try to explicitly explain how things ended. Honestly, I was hoping they’d leave it vague so we could all come up with our own interpretations of what we saw. Though, looking back, a lot of my friends were totally lost by the ending—and that includes both the people who loved it and the ones who hated it... so now I'm feeling a little confused myself; is it really that hard to follow? I won't lay out my own theory just yet because I’m genuinely curious to hear what you guys make of it.
Unlike some other folks, I didn't necessarily see Neo as a Jesus figure (even if there are definitely elements that point toward that interpretation); maybe it's just because I'm an atheist 😁. The core philosophy of this trilogy is rooted in Gnosticism; it's sort of like a spiritual buffet of religious philosophies, so I suppose everyone finds the flavor that resonates most with them. I don't think you can truly understand Neo without Agent Smith—because when the Oracle says, "He is you," it strikes me as one of those Eastern philosophical takes on good and evil. It feels very different from the more simplified American Judeo-Christian framework of God as absolute good versus the Devil as absolute evil. But hey, that's just my take, and like I said, we all see what we want to see.
Anyway, I won't keep bothering you all any longer—that's all from me for now. 😁
Honestly, adding the word "quasi" before "cult" feels a little redundant to me—I mean, let's be real, "The Matrix" isn't just some niche favorite, it’s an absolute cinematic icon and a massive global phenomenon.
casualotter21 said:In "A Study in Scarlet," Sherlock Holmes famously claims: "An ideal logician should be able to deduce the existence of Niagara Falls or the Pacific Ocean from a single drop of water."
Basically, he means: GO BIG OR GO HOME!
I remember reading an article by Perković in The Washington Post about some big-shot rock critic back in the 70s who eventually admitted years later that he mostly judged albums based on their cover art. If that guy isn't the definition of an ideal logician, then I honestly don't know who is... 😁
casualotter21 said:Don't you worry about a thing. Pretty soon, you won't just understand why they titled it "Revolutions," you'll probably end up with fifteen different theories about what it all means.
Ha, ha, ha! :clapping: :clapping:
I feel myself starting to overanalyze things already, but I haven't even sat down to watch the movie yet! Is all that deep thinking even necessary?
Justin Patel said:Wait, is it actually true that Revolutions is coming to visit us next week? (I'm genuinely confused!) It’s just you and me, friend—we're gonna grab some snacks and just lounge on the couch and watch it.
Actually, Nope, Blade Runner 2049 hits US theaters on November 5th—and it's showing at 3:00 PM.
Since this is coming from the duo of Jerry Bruckheimer and that total nobody Gora Verbinskog, I have to say the movie is surprisingly fun and actually feels quite classy—though it definitely wouldn't hurt if they trimmed about 40 or 50 minutes off the runtime.
...and honestly, Depp is just incredible! He didn't just channel his inner Keith Richards, either; he also captured that vibe of Pepe Le Pew from the Warner Bros. Looney Tunes—you know, that cartoon character who thinks he’s some kind of ultimate ladies' man, constantly chasing after that poor little cat trying to win her over. 😁