DVDizzy Forum

They mean that disc two (The Matrix Revisited documentary) and disc seven (The Animatrix) will be exactly the same as their separate counterparts. Everything else will be different.

Ah, I see. I was thinking out of the 7 discs from the existing trilogy, lol.

Well, that complicates things a tad.

-Aaron

I hated the sequels, but thought the first one was pretty cool. Why couldn't they release the movies seperately? Blood-sucking Warner...

Sixty dollars for 10 discs filled with three movies and a neo figurine? The first one was okay but...all three for sixty bucks? Eh, I don't think so. Those movie were not good. Special effects or not.

disneychris04 wrote:I hated the sequels, but thought the first one was pretty cool. Why couldn't they release the movies seperately? Blood-sucking Warner...

Give them time...
Each disc will be eventually released as a 2-disc, I'm sure.

The first film, especially, will probably have new editions every few years for all eternity.

Loomis wrote:

disneychris04 wrote:I hated the sequels, but thought the first one was pretty cool. Why couldn't they release the movies seperately? Blood-sucking Warner...

Give them time...
Each disc will be eventually released as a 2-disc, I'm sure.

The first film, especially, will probably have new editions every few years for all eternity.

You're absolutely right, Loomis. Even The Alien Quadrilogy got its 4 films released seperately! So let's hope Matrix will be the same.

To me the Martrix represents the pinnacle of product pushing.

The first movie was pretty good, certainly different. Afterwards it seemed though that whole thing was a con.

The movie tried to be like a dark independent movie but being a WB movie it was the perfect example of a big company producing crap and people gladly eating with a big smile on their face.

The creators bought the hype of the first movie and stretched the story into three movies, when two and three were so deprived of substance they easily could have been two. But there is more money in three.....

So they made three and even though the plot completely lost steam and the writer did their best stanley kubrick impersonations the second and third movies were just plain bad.

But they did such a dang good job of hyping and marketing the series that they could have shown two hours of Keanu Reeves brushing his teeth and people would still "love it".

The matrix dared to be independent and buck the trends, but then it became everything it made fun of. A giant marketing scheme complete with BMW's and watches and glasses and stretching one movie into two.

The matrix trilogy proved to me that if nothing else, when people want a movie to be good they'll do whatever they have to keep the illussion in their minds that it actually was.

I dont mean that as a slam on anyone. I've just seen people do that to so many movies {anyone remember the Final Fantasy movie}. They want so bad for it to be good, that they start to believe it.

Yeah it's 10 discs for an incredible 60 bucks, but its just a bundle deal. A way to charge you more for crap they can't sell independently.

The movies were already released individually, and are still available. The first one probably needs a reissue, as it was one disc (but The Matrix Revisted served as a second disk). The others already have pretty good individual 2-Disc sets.

I want the content on the 10 discs, I don't view it as crap at all. The majority of it seems to be what I was hoping to have much more of on the original releases. It's great stuff for those who are fans of the entire trilogy.

I didn't see the first Matrix until last year, and watched it because I had seen one scene on TV that looked pretty cool. I had very low expectations going into it and was blown away. Not too much later, the sequel came out. Not having seen the first movie until then, I hadn't really paid much attention to any of the marketing (I rarely do for movies I don't plan to see). I also didn't have much time to build up larger-than-life expectations. I saw the second and was equally blown away. The two together set up the perfect story, in my opinion, and the philosophy-over-action, war-over-fighting conclusion was a perfect end. I think the second two movies suffered the same fate as the Star Wars prequels at the hands of their own fans.

-Aaron

*cough*Dark City*cough*

Aaron, you should seek this out. Much better than the Matrix, and startlingly similar too.

awallaceunc wrote:The movies were already released individually, and are still available. The first one probably needs a reissue, as it was one disc (but The Matrix Revisted served as a second disk). The others already have pretty good individual 2-Disc sets.

I want the content on the 10 discs, I don't view it as crap at all. The majority of it seems to be what I was hoping to have much more of on the original releases. It's great stuff for those who are fans of the entire trilogy.

I didn't see the first Matrix until last year, and watched it because I had seen one scene on TV that looked pretty cool. I had very low expectations going into it and was blown away. Not too much later, the sequel came out. Not having seen the first movie until then, I hadn't really paid much attention to any of the marketing (I rarely do for movies I don't plan to see). I also didn't have much time to build up larger-than-life expectations. I saw the second and was equally blown away. The two together set up the perfect story, in my opinion, and the philosophy-over-action, war-over-fighting conclusion was a perfect end. I think the second two movies suffered the same fate as the Star Wars prequels at the hands of their own fans.

-Aaron

I think the fact that everyone knew the sequels were coming for soooo long made expectations way too high. Everyone had too long to think about how it would end; and of course it couldn't match expectations.

I still don't think the last two are nearly as good as the first but there is a good reason for that. The first matrix is entirely based on the New Testament, while the second two are based on the "Return" so to speak. The first one had everything spelled out for the writers while they had to come up for the plots of the second two on their own.

TheZue wrote:I think the fact that everyone knew the sequels were coming for soooo long made expectations way too high. Everyone had too long to think about how it would end; and of course it couldn't match expectations.

Right-o. I think the guessing of how it would end served to raise expectations even higher.

TheZue wrote:I still don't think the last two are nearly as good as the first but there is a good reason for that. The first matrix is entirely based on the New Testament, while the second two are based on the "Return" so to speak. The first one had everything spelled out for the writers while they had to come up for the plots of the second two on their own.

You're right about the first and second movie. The first went off that whole NT-based savior arc. The second didn't have much of that, it was simply a bridge movie... something had to happen between the first and the third. I thought it had amazing action, though, which made up for it. The third movie, though, had an equally strong backing (though many might claim it to be too far-fetched), which was on Revelation-end of the NT.

Netty- will do. I've heard a little about this movie before.

-Aaron

Re: Dark City

Here's an interesting comparison page!
http://www.gougoule.com/darkmatrix/

awallaceunc wrote:The movies were already released individually, and are still available. The first one probably needs a reissue, as it was one disc (but The Matrix Revisted served as a second disk)

I know that, I mean I wanted to have only the first Matrix film on a new 2-disc set with the new transfer from the gift set.

By the way, this is my 200th post!!

Wow, Netty! I'm assuming you've seen both. Are those just coincidences, or is the movie really that scene-by-scene similar? They probably both would have been in simultaneous production at some point in time, so that's interesting.

disneychris04 wrote:I know that, I mean I wanted to have only the first Matrix film on a new 2-disc set with the new transfer from the gift set.

By the way, this is my 200th post!!

Well, that's certainly understandable. I'm sure it'll come along at some point.

-Aaron

awallaceunc wrote:Wow, Netty! I'm assuming you've seen both. Are those just coincidences, or is the movie really that scene-by-scene similar? They probably both would have been in simultaneous production at some point in time, so that's interesting.

Well, believe it or not, I've only seen the Matrix once, and it was a few years ago now. That said, I had seen Dark City first, and I can remember thinking "this is just like Dark City" when watching The Matrix, so that explains why even the first Matrix film didn't impress me. I also got annoyed with all the Matrix hype which basically claimed how original the concept was... To be honest I've forgotton most of the Matrix.

I don't think it's a shot for shot remake, or even a story for story remake, but they are remarkably similar in concept and look. And a few plot points do seem to be identical. But I guess those shots are specifically choosen for the purposes of the page. I'll be interested in doing a comparision myself when the multi-disc set arrives.

I have seen Dark City again recently, and it is in my opinion a much better film than the Matrix. Much deeper and more inteligent than the Matrix.

starwarsprequels/martixsequels

good demo reels.


dark city-the matrix

2 variations of a theme


I might get the box. maybe from all that material one could condense/remix/reload a revolutionary revisited single sequel

I dont the matrix sequels or the star wars prequels can be blamed on fans overhyping them,

They simply werent very good movies. But people like shiney things, so throw in enough cool camera effects, put out a video game with "backstory" and have some cool freeway scenes and the sheep jump the fence for ya.

The SW prequels themselves showed me one thing, Lucas never had a "Whole" story already written. It shows with the plot holes, lack of character development, etc.

What basically happened is Lucas opened his yap said "yeah i have these stories" and as the fans built the star wars universe up to epic proportions he kind of had his back against the wall.

He has also proved in his actions from the past 5 or so years that is increasingly losing touch with the audience who enjoyed the series. What it comes down to is he was probably caught in a lie that he never thought was going to get as big as it did. We've all done it. No big deal really.

To me the Matrix {the first one} was at least interesting because it borrowed heavily from the new testament, star wars, blade runner and dark city but used the best special effects of the time to gloss over Keanu Reeves wooden acting and the fact that it was unfortunatly kind of a hack movie though a very good hack movie.

The second movie was a bridge one, but no one can really deny that a lot of the plot could have been squeezed into the third movie. But if it costs 100 million to make a movie that you know will make you 300 million but only 150 million to make two movies that will make 600 million, you don't have to be a math major to figure out which concept is gonna get off the ground.

deathie mouse wrote: dark city-the matrix

2 variations of a theme

Then I guess you could argue all of them have stolen/borrowed from William Gibson/Neuromancer stuff (in addition to a million other sources in the case of Matrix).

I guess the problem with the sequels was they tried to make the story something it wasn't. It is very easy to say "I always intended it to be this many parts..." AFTER the film is a success (like George Lucas has done with the Star Wars films). The first Matrix film, like the first Star Wars films, (or even 'A New Hope') was a complete character arc that saw the 'nobody' become a hero. When you start changing that and adding new bits on, the arc is weakened. It was obvious that the Brothers couldn't sustain the new story over two films, unless of course they added wanky dance parties and 30 minute fight scenes that went nowhere.

Well, a bridge was needed, and I thought the action supplements in the second one were awesome. Sure, they could've squeezed it into two movies... but why not make three. If the two options are spacious or dense, I'm fine with spacious. It's not as if they were at any time boring, in my opinion. The $7 didn't break me, either, and it was my choice to spend it.

Of course, whether or not they are simply bad films is only a matter of opinion, one that I disagree with. Speaking as a fan of the Matrix and Star Wars follow-ups, though, I can assure you that I don't base my opinion on "shiny things" and video games I never played. I thought the plot in all the Matrix films was solid and the philosophy was consistent.

And I hardly think it's fair to reduce the Star Wars story to a lie.

-Aaron

Loomis wrote:

deathie mouse wrote: dark city-the matrix

2 variations of a theme

Then I guess you could argue all of them have stolen/borrowed from William Gibson/Neuromancer stuff (in addition to a million other sources in the case of Matrix).

I guess the problem with the sequels was they tried to make the story something it wasn't. It is very easy to say "I always intended it to be this many parts..." AFTER the film is a success (like George Lucas has done with the Star Wars films). The first Matrix film, like the first Star Wars films, (or even 'A New Hope') was a complete character arc that saw the 'nobody' become a hero. When you start changing that and adding new bits on, the arc is weakened. It was obvious that the Brothers couldn't sustain the new story over two films, unless of course they added wanky dance parties and 30 minute fight scenes that went nowhere.

Couldnt agree more. I wanted to watch the second one again just so i could time all the fight scenes, it's probably close to 70% of the movie.