What? I’ve owned a Blu-Ray box set of The Matrix for years now. I live in the US.
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Movies
2 readers
1 users here now
**For news and discussion about movies!**
founded 1 year ago
What? I’ve owned a Blu-Ray box set of The Matrix for years now. I live in the US.
Ah! but Matrix Resurrection was also released on Blu-ray (and DVD) and the parameters of this thought experiment was "Highest resolution release on a format which never acknowledged the existence of the fourth film."
I’ve had my blu ray box set for years before the 4th film was ever made
I’ve had my blu ray box set for years before the 4th film was ever made
A shame Warner Bros. and Lana had to go and ruin the release post-facto. 😕
That's pretty interesting!
I have to admit I refuse to own anything past the first one.
When I was in the middle of watching the third one, the power cut out and I was conscious of a feeling of relief. That's as far as I got.
I have to admit I refuse to own anything past the first one.
Like it's an option. If you bought a DVD player, a copy of The Matrix appears in your home.
That... sort of is what happens. Are we in the matrix?
I have to admit I refuse to own anything past the first one.
Well if YOU wanted the view the highest resolution available on a format which never acknowledged the sequels, you are limited to the USA NTSC release of the film on LaserDisc (Hong Kong release was pan & scan).
The color timing of that release is different from later pressings however, closer to the theatrical release fewer scenes have a green tint. You may view that as an improvement.
There are two main reasons I think people "don't like the sequels".
The first—of which I do not accuse you—is transphobia. I don't feel like reliving the trauma of looking up the details or the timeline, but as I recall before the trilogy was finished (but after contracts were signed) one of the sisters (I want to say ...Lana) was outed by Buck Angel because he was mad his wife was cheating on him with one of The Wachowski Sisters (Lana?) People were mad this thing they like was created by at least 1 (they knew at the time) trans woman and even if they weren't pushing outright hate they weren't pushing as hard how awesome the films were anymore. I suspect similar would have happened with Fight Club if Chuck Palahniuk had been as openly gay as he is now back in 1999.
The second—in my view much larger—reason people "don't like The Matrix sequels" is The Matrix at its base was a story which said, "What you think is, isn't." Anyone who feels disaffected or alienated can identify with the story.
The 2nd and 3rd movies, rather than being statements of what "isn't" were statements of "what is".
There is just a much larger group dissatisfied with a status quo than can be satisfied with any proffered replacement.
If the first film said, "Hey, are you hungry?" a bunch of people are going to feel and agree with that. If the sequels then said, "Alright, here's some Hulbata." Much fewer people are going to want that than originally agreed they were hungry, be it because they don't eat animals, don't like spicy foods, or want a spoon.
The people who want what the 2nd and 3rd films were offering are not going to notice any drop in quality from the first film, but the people who were hungry and salivating at the first film but don't like lamb, are now hangry.
@FfaerieOxide good to know. Why less green filter?
I think you're mostly right about the "Hulbata" theory. I don't think audiences had to be disaffected per se but the first Matrix is high concept in all senses of the word; it's asking philosophical questions and much of the diegetic worlds it builds are hypothetical - sketched in, as a sort of framework for the bigger questions. A hell of a lot of gimmes that didn't really matter.
Add that to the peak late 90s style and what were cutting edge fx and it was really new.
But you're right, because of that we could project whatever we wanted into it. But then the sequels were fleshing out and codifying it all and making more laws and rules, and it became too literal. Zion was an ideal of humanity in the first film... in the second film it actually appears, and it seems to be a kind of irritating drum-hippy dance party.
If the first movie had you thinking about, I dunno, Baudrillard or something, then you meet the Architect etc and it's suddenly a lot more like Jainism meets the Masonic lodge, whether you like it or not.
If the first movie had you thinking about, I dunno, Baudrillard
And then the fourth* had Niel Patrick cosplaying as Blanchard.
*which I still refuse to acknowledge
If you wanted to understand The Matrix, you are going to have to watch all 3 films.
You will also need to see The Matrix: Revisited, The Matrix Reloaded: Revisited, & The Matrix Revolutions: Revisited.
You will of course have to watch all 9 shorts from The Animatrix.
You will need to read through The Zion Archives and watch The Burly Man Chronicles.
You're going to have to get your hands on The Matrix Revolutions bonus CD-Rom.
You are going to have to play through Enter The Matrix, The Path Of Neo, and to have played The Matrix Online (servers for which shut down in 2009).
You Will need to see The Art of The Matrix and read The Shooting Script, as well as Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 of The Matrix Comics.
You'll need to trawl through contemporary WhatIsTheMatrix as well as TheMatrix-Movie sites, and to have participated in contemporary Matrix Forums.
You'll need to read Simulacres et Simulation in the original French, as well as Meditationes de Prima Philosophia by Renatus Descartes (that one it is ok to read in english, however)
You'll also need to read Out of Control : The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization.
You should also read up on Sophia Stweart's lawsuit against The Wachowski Sisters, Warner Brothers, James Cameron, and 20th Century Fox.
You do not, in order to understand The Matrix, need to listen to the commentary track featuring Dr. Cornel West & Ken Wilber. instead, just watch the films regular and set up a loop pedal to repeat every 17-38 seconds "...in a Manichaean sense." You'll get the same effect.
I do however recommend listening to the LaserDisc commentary for the 1996 film Bound.
Finally, to truly "understand" the films, you're going to have to take some dissociatives or hallucinogens (or even better both) and sip on a milkshake containing either reduced down pregnant horse pee or ground up goat testicles—whichever one works for you. I would not do both but I ain't here to tell you what to do, @livus.
I don't know where to begin but I'm saving this palimpsest of a comment of yours to explore during my next bout of insomnia. <3
I'm incapable of reading Simulacrum in the original but I have read Welcome To The Desert Of The Real so I let myself off the hook.
Lana was definitely first, as I still can't help thinking of them as "Lana and whats-her-face."
Personally I don't remember the sequels fondly because they're kind of a mess. Some of that's one movie getting turned into two. Some of that's 00s CGI blended with too-clever writing and trite allegory.
“Lana and whats-her-face.”
Lilly. She's the one who didn't make anti-Black comments about Prop 8 in 2015. Lilly is also the one without culturally appropriative hair.
Some of that’s 00s CGI
I didn't dig how computer-heavy the later films were either. Listen to the commentaries and extras where they talk about "digital inter-shot frames" and I turn Hank Rutherford: "They think that's a selling point?
blended with too-clever writing and trite allegory.
I'm not sure if it's "too clever" or "trite" because I don't understand the films enough to tell. They certainly made a piece which required a great deal of extra-cinematic media viewing in order to "get" which I totally understand why people complain about.
That's asking alot of your audience.