Matrix Resurrections had a super trippy premise, which was in line with the original film. The first half of the movie was momentously expectation-breaking mind fuckery, and I immensely enjoyed it. (I wish I had shut the film off after the reveal.)
The action sequences and set pieces were absolutely lackluster and downright boring despite the film's budget. (Not sure if this is due to the age of the actors - the John Wick series seems to have figured this out just fine.)
Most damning of all, the story arc, character arcs, and final resolution were phoned in and utterly forgettable. It's tragic, given the ludicrously audacious start of the film. The setup was there, but there was no investment beyond the trick premise.
Lana swung for the fences but struck out. It felt like an M. Night Shyamalan letdown.
Lana swung for the fences but struck out. It felt like an M. Night Shyamalan letdown.
I still don’t know why she even agreed. The pay check?
If they wanted to bring it back, they should have discarded all the previous stuff besides the basic premise. The original movie even had this whole thing about Neo being the sixth “The One”.
That’s 5 prequels right there. And the obvious exploration of what happened after the reboot.
Trying to bring back the cast except as a way to hand over the franchise (by dying) is almost always going to be stupid.
...now the packet in front of you has our focus group research inside you'll find the breakdown including key word association with the brand the top two being originality and fresh which i think are great things to keep in mind as you begin working on matrix four and who knows how many more...
> I still don’t know why she even agreed. The pay check?
She has explicitly said in interviews they told her they would make it with or without her, so she made it crap on purpose to tank the franchise. It was supposed to suck.
I actually like 2 and 3 in retrospect, but I shut 4 off about halfway through.
I liked the reimagining of agent smith ("the man") from an unnamed government agent to a tech bro. The conversation about the new matrix being made "with or without" the original creator was a great fuck you to whoever was pulling those strings.
I wanted them to add another couple layers to the mind fuckery. We're used to watching the matrix and knowing which scenes are in the matrix and which are in the real world. Mess with that. Reveal halfway through that the "real world" scenes we've seen so far (in 4, not the previous movies) have actually been in the matrix.
In my ideal world, the climax would've been Neo realizing that he's been dead the whole movie, existing as a manifestation of the free machines, giving them individuality and choice the same way that agent smith took away human individuality and choice in 3. Trinity can still be saved, but Neo can never go with her to the real world.
> In my ideal world, the climax would've been Neo realizing that he's been dead the whole movie, existing as a manifestation of the free machines, giving them individuality and choice the same way that agent smith took away human individuality and choice in 3. Trinity can still be saved, but Neo can never go with her to the real world.
According to some readings of the film, the climax is Neo realizing that he's been dead (at least figuratively) the whole movie. Those are the readings that Neo and Trinity are the same character and Neo is as much or more the "deadname"/"dead inside" parts. Matrix 4 did a bunch of work for those readings.
Honestly I liked 4 better than 2 or 3. But mostly for the first half. It probably goes down as the best movie made despite the objections of the director and I found the self-referential thing really funny.
You do know that Lana Wachowski intentionally made it as bad as possible to tank the franchise cause she was forced to make the movie or the studio would get someone else to direct it right?
Why would she pitch a movie just to purposely make it horrible? If she was forced to make a movie, why not make it good? Or at least not one of the worst movies I’ve seen in years?
The take you mentioned seems more like after the fact justifications for making a horrible film.
Insufficient sun exposure is responsible for approximately 340,000 deaths annually in the United States and 480,000 deaths annually in Europe, while non-melanoma skin cancers account for 63,700 deaths worldwide. Skin cancer only occurs due to excessive exposure combined with a weakened immune system, which is really rare.
You're more likely to die in a traffic accident or from insufficient sun exposure than to ever develop skin cancer.
Australia. We have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world due to high UV levels.
“Skin cancer causes more deaths than transport accidents every year in Australia.”
I can’t leave the house for more than like five minutes for big chunks for at least half the year without having to smother myself in sunscreen so for large parts of the year I just don’t go outside during like 9AM-6PM.
I fell asleep once in the car with the window open by mistake, I was out for like 45 minutes. A decade later that arm is still an entirely different color to my other one. Wild, one of the worst burns I’ve ever had.
edit
And to think, that’s die from a skin cancer, not merely develop it. So it actually blows that claim out of the water for Australia by a way larger margin than I initially thought.
2 out of 3 Australians will develop skin cancer in their lifetime.
Yeah, one of the things I loved about Europe was being able to go outside on a lark without worrying that if I wasn’t watching my watch that I’d burn to an absolute crisp. I miss that :/
That is indeed a serious suggestion, and an absolutely correct one.
Transparency is a dependency of trust. Neither Google, Apple, nor Microsoft are transparent about the software they offer, the data that software collects, or how they use the data collected. They are in fact quite opaque about all of those things. The only assurance of privacy they offer is their word.
Apple does have the occasional third-party review of cryptography and whatnot.
Apple also have an actual, single phone support number in multiple languages and countries that you can use as a paying customer. Day and night with Google.
If I showed you that you were wrong, would you change your mind?
Usually when you ask this, people just tell you again why they're right. That means they aren't really open to changing their mind. If I can prove you're wrong, will you change your mind?
I'd absolutely change my mind if proven wrong. If any of those companies publish the source code of all the software running on their devices and servers (and can prove that said source code corresponds to what's actually deployed), then that'd be an excellent start.
"Neither Google, Apple, nor Microsoft are transparent about the software they offer, the data that software collects, or how they use the data collected."
Apple is very different than the other two here. Do you actually believe otherwise or are your goalposts just... set as to be useless?
Apple is not different from either of those two in any of those senses. No source code = no transparency. If I am incorrect about that - and Apple does openly publish all of the code that collects and interacts with their customers' data - then I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.
That's a major component of what transparency entails, and that's what's a dependency of trust. No source code = no transparency, no transparency = no trust. Simple.
I'm at least trying to have a good-faith conversation. If you ain't interested in the same, then surely there are better things for you to do than to waste both of our time, no?
And while that's not an unreasonable rebuttal, my first argument (in agreement with yours) is that Google does not sell their users' information, and neither does Apple.
Being up in arms about the lack of privacy from Google is fair, and something I agree with. But Apple doesn't offer dramatically more privacy from Apple that I'm aware of. Both allow, but discourage, free accounts, and run ad networks (that they don't sell user information on)
I'm not even arguing there's no difference, just that there's less than everyone likes to pretend
