Who else thinks The Matrix should have only been one movie?

I like Reloaded. but I was really disappointed with Revolutions. I was hoping for a different ending. The way that they filmed the last two together and released them 6 months apart kinda excludes the first one from the story. At least to me it does. It seems to me that the last two are better connected than all three are together. I really love the first one and until late 2000 I did not know they were making more. I was satisfied with the ending to the first one. It let me form my own conclusions about Neo and his saving the human race. Had i been director I think I would have left it as just one film. Anyone agree?


The Cloner

 

They're all okay films, but the first one is really over rated.

 

I was quite content to leave it as it was as well. I couldn't have cared less if they just stopped after the first movie. It was good, and permanent cliffhangers are cool, but the second and third ended up ruining it for me.

 

I think they could have worked on the second one longer

 

The first one was the only good one in my estimation.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Yeah, the jesus ref and stuff was subtle in the first but in the last they were forcing it down out throats.


Also LotR should have only been the last movie. The first two were a waste of time.

 

I think they are fine as a trilogy.

 

I liked the first movie, but it went all downhill from there.

 

There's nothing wrong with either of the sequels. Why do you people complain so much?

 

It seems to me IMHO that most people that dont like the last 2, dont get the last 2 films. Its like all the philosophy went right over their heads and the special effects, which were incredible, were just too much for em.

But like I said from what I hear from people who dont like em, thats just IMHO.

 

i love 'em nothing wrong with 'em

 

[color=663300]I think the sequels were just a case of horrible storytelling. They could have easily made those two films into one sequel and it would have been MUCH better in my mind. In fact, reloaded almost served no purpose at all. The tiny bit of actual plot movement needed for the storyline that happend in reloaded could have been integrated into revolutions and saved me two hours that I'll never get back. [/color]

 

It seems to me IMHO that most people that dont like the last 2, dont get the last 2 films.

No, we get them. We just think they suck.

 

I'm in total agreement there. I totally understood the two sequels. They just were sub-par.

 

It's quite clear that with the last film, the Matrix filmmakers totally ran out of ideas.

 

It's been my experience that whenever someone dislikes a sequel to a movie they liked, they were expecting an exact clone of the original. Well, get this: sequels are made to be different. If you want the original, then watch the original. The sequel continues the story, and thus has to be different from the first.

 

Think about this:

Why was the first so successful? Because of the effects? No. It's because this happened to you. It COULD happen to you. It was the story of Tom Anderson. It was so succesful cause the idea all made sense, and it was a very relatable thing.

The second two were the story of Zion. Which no one really cared about anyway.

What could have maybe made the difference would have been to have te short piece in the Animatrix about the annoying kid BE Reloaded. It'd be more personable. And character driven, not location driven.

 

You are all wrong. Bib hit it right on the mark.




Rick McCallum is impartial to your existence.

 

I thought Animatrix was pretty boring.

I actually think that Matrix, and Matrix Reloaded are two, really great, movies.

Matrix:Revolutions is pretty weak up until the scene where Neo and Smith have that fight.

 

I think they could have paced Reloaded a bit better, and that they should have waited at least a year before they released Revolutions. But I do think the trilogy format worked well for Matrix and I pretty much enjoyed the series overall.

 

It's been my experience that whenever someone dislikes a sequel to a movie they liked, they were expecting an exact clone of the original. Well, get this: sequels are made to be different. If you want the original, then watch the original. The sequel continues the story, and thus has to be different from the first.

Well, that's not why I disliked the sequels, if I'm allowed to speak for myself on this.
Personally, I felt Reloaded was absolutely useless to the plot and was needlessly complex (and some of the effects were sub-par). I felt Revolutions, while better than Reloaded (but not by much), TOTALLY mis-handled the ending. There were about 20 things they COULD have done with the ending to give it more "closure", and it did none of them.

When I see a sequel, I expect it to not only be different, but for it to also have a POINT. Reloaded didn't have one.

 

I didn't like Neo sacrificing himself or Trinity dying. And I really wanted Neo to come back and take out the guy with the gray hair and beard too. Anyway, IMO The Matrix was too pyschologically complex to have been only one movie. It would have been a great trilogy instead of a good trilogy had Neo and Trinity not died. I really hated that.

 

the whole matrix was a bad idea

 

First film was great fun. They should have stopped there.

 

I agree. I didn't care much for Reloaded and Revolutions was a major disappointment for me. I think the first film would have been great by itself,the conclusion could have been just left to imagination.