I get that older movies with established franchises can be secure bets to bring in money, but there's a lot of diminishing returns. I feel some people just see these releases in the theaters because there's nothing else released.
Just look at all the attention this announcement gets. You don't get a HN thread because some studio announce they will film an original story from an unknown screenwriter.
In the 80s and 90s we had bladerunner, the original matrix of course, we had alien and a significant amount of mainstream, big name fiction. Yes, retro movies have always existed but alongside the creation of entirely new genres, in particular in science fiction. We had Gibson alongside others creating the entirely new cyberpunk subgenre that influenced many of these original movies.
What exactly is the equivalent of this today? Yes we have some new stuff, I liked Ted Chiang's Arrival for example, but is there a big new future oriented wave of genuinely new fiction? I don't see it at all.
I think we've had a good run; I also think it's easy to be biased and not see it because of some nostalgia-effect of sorts. If you are f.e. 30+ you might more easily dismiss a movie as Limitless or Lucy as uncredible; both are based on a common myth that we only utilize a low percentage of our brains capacity, as an example, so they are that: unrealistic. But I think that's an unfair comparison because of an inherent bias that when you think about a movie like The Matrix you don't see it with the same critical lens because you perhaps had less knowledge of the world in your earlier years. #JustAFewThoughts
Nah, the worst BS explanation in The Matrix was just as immediately triggering, even though I was younger. The difference is that:
(1) the rest of the movie contradicted the nonsense explanation (in part because it wasn't the actual concept, but a revision added in narration only without revising the rest of the film (or the sequels) around it in response to test audiences confusion with the explanation that the creators originally had in mind), and
(2) the narration providing it was given to a character that, while set up as the “wise mentor”, it was pretty critical to the entire series was unreliable narrator.
it's 2019 mate, the original matrix movie actually is 20 years old as of last month, doesn't feel like it to me either but here we are.
But of course the point isn't to haggle about a year or two, really this cultural stagnation in mainstream fiction has been going on since I'd say at least the mid 2000s. The wave of marvel movie reproductions has been happening for a while, the first Iron Man came out in 2008 and ever since then it seems mainstream cinema has moved more and more to generic, established aesthetics and stories.
Yeah if you look at movie marketing, the spending is focused on the big, safe "tentpole" movies. If you don't seek out movies to your own taste, it might seem like the blockbusters are the only ones getting produced.
I'm deliriously happy. If you'd showed 15 year old me the slate of Marvel movies released in the last 10 years, I'd have freaked out. The kids these days don't know they're born.
I'm pretty sure lost of people here who are critical of a Matrix sequel will go and see it anyway, if nothing else just to be able to complain.
None of that is intended to diminish the movie in any way.
I mean, all stories tend to follow a Hero's Journey. It's difficult to create a good/entertaining story that doesn't.
When they see a newer films rehashing the same tropes, they consider them unoriginal, without realizing that the "original" film was also just recycled ideas.
is there? I feel that these remakes are making way too much money for way too little "original effort". People, despite what they say, still go to watch it.
Disney disagrees. Have a look at the box office of their live action remakes:
- Beauty and the Beast: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beautyandthebeast20...
- Aladdin: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=disneyfairytale2201...
- The Lion King: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lionkingliveaction....
Why wouldn't they keep making the same movies over and over with billion dollar returns like that?
Think about this, since it's the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. When that festival happened, rock and roll music wasn't even 20 years old.
Just Disney projected hitting 7 billion dollar blockbusters this year. Look at the titles - Aladdin, Lion King, Toy Story 4, Star Wars, Frozen 2, Avengers End Game, Capt Marvel. There is nothing new there.
I would say there are no new stories and there haven't been for a long time.
What is the Iliad if not a superhero movie? You have the world's greatest warrior, Achilles, a demigod, unbeatable except for his one super-weakness. Sound familiar?
Something I find interesting about all the recent superhero movies is that the battles are staged very much like ancient battles - soldiers in formation fighting hand to hand. This of course gives the heroes the opportunity to be heroic on the field. And again it's just like the Iliad.
One the other hand there are now more Not-Hollywood studios releasing more original stuff than ever before and it's easier than ever before to actually see those films (although perhaps not at the cinema).
Imagine if we hadn't seen how Anakin became Darth Vader? As a kid I imagined a much more terrifying journey that turned him to the dark side. The prequels could never live up to that.
Edit: ...and on the other hand, imagine a "Duel" prequel where we get to see the truck driver's backstory. Consider how dramatically this would reduce the stature of the original film. (p.s. If you haven't seen "duel" you should).
I think it taps into existential crysis in a way, the nature of post ww2 youth oriented culture, immature notion of art and even the ubiquitous computer era we're in.
As you say, sometimes, things don't need an explanation, they're as great as they can be. It's more magic than logic and it's exactly right. It's a normal reflex to want to dig more but if you forget to make the explanation a good story with its own sense of magic/appeal.. you just killed your subject.
So many movies did that, even gore movies reboot trying to explain the jail time of a serial killer.
I really believe that the computing era gave this notion that more facts and logic equals better. Before people did entertainment for it and made it good enough to fulfill its duty, with a form of art. It can be an action movie, an adventure thing.. it didn't have to be PhD level of truthiness.
And the existential crysis.. so much of reboots feel like a desire at reliving virginal moments of our childhood. It's slightly (if not more) backward, it's better to take a leap of faith and create new instead of making our own little inception sublevel jails.
Instead studio supposedly wanted to cash-in, so there was anime-prequel anthology, a short prologue film two sequels themselves and a companion game.
And I do think there is an excellent ~2 hour movie hidden somewhere in some ginormous edit combining all of the matrix-sequels material, instead of what we got, that was still good and entertaining, but not living up to the hype :)
*Wachowski, only one of them is doing the movie (Lana)
In fact, Morpheus was in charge (by the Machines) to search for people in the Matrix who thought something was wrong. He would then offer them a chance of waking up in the "real world". But this real world turned out to be yet another Matrix designed by the Machines to deceive those people into thinking that they're actually fighting the Machines while in fact, they were still in another Matrix! It was a perfectly designed illusion. This idea gets more serious when you realize how absurd it is for the Machines - that basically took over the world - to need human brain power to operate. Then again, maybe this whole Matrix is not designed by the Machines and only follows a script written by humans to predict possible future scenarios. I'd be willing to watch the next Matrix film!
All of Zion is working on the search, the story just focuses on the group that finds "the one".
The aim is to produces movies with the broadest appeal, ideally in other markets beyond the US. While that makes business sense, having to ensure a movie can translate to many languages and cultures has the effect of overly simplifying dialog and focusing on visuals and action sequences.
Making a clever, deep, challenging and insightful movie with originality that can also be slotted into many target markets is a reach too far and so we end up digging around well known franchises and opting for the same old predictable stories.
The big screen is too big now. The future of engaging storytelling is increasingly going to need to come from other places.
Or maybe this was all a dream and neo and trinity will wake up in their boring lives at the start and for 2h go about their uneventful, shitty lives :D
Although KR is super dedicated to the fighting stuff apparently, so that should be good. Maybe Smith comes back and they just give them a new reason to brawl. I would go see that.
Actually I would prefer an awesome Neo-vs-Smith fight over the "infinite worlds" idea. I don't see what's left to explore in that direction, the transition from one world to another is just the same as going from the Matrix to the real world. Lose your identity and start over, except you'll gradually realize you've never had any real identity outside any of the Matrix-worlds. So, your identity is completely contextual... but maybe there are some things that never change? What is human nature and what isn't? But they kind of did this in the third movie already, where it was revealed the prophecy is a lie. Back to square one for Neo.
Whatever it is, I hope it's not going to be a PC reboot with a female lead or something. Though actually I'd be alright with it if they made it mainly about Trinity.
The end result is endless reboots and sequels at the box office.
You mean 1940?
I ask because despite sort of knowing it could not be so I still found myself not 100% certain. On the one hand why would Americans say Neil that way. On the other hand what kind of daft name was "Neo" especially if you're trying to create a solid sense of reality prior to ripping back the curtain?
Certainly kept me guessing anyway...
- Neo is an anagram of "one" because he is "The One" who will change the destiny of mankind
- His first name is Thomas which is a reference to Doubting Thomas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas
- His surname is Anderson, which translates as "son of man" which is a reference to Jesus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)
Neo is an anagram of One.
I'm scared and happy at the same time about this news.
Or a matrix inside the Matrix
The Matrix is a good setting for action films. I won’t care terribly if it lacks the philosophical or sci fi aspects
weird/hard to go back to that, but jumping it ahead to current day seems weird too. I dunno