|
|
Post by xystophoros on Apr 19, 2017 0:34:31 GMT
I don't mean to diss anyone, but I think it's useless trying to explain the trilogy in a way that makes sense.
It's just not coherent. The first movie was a fantastic science fiction/action thriller that got by without filling in the details because, 1) The movie was so exciting, viewers didn't have time to stop and think, and 2) Leaving questions unanswered is a key part of maintaining mystique.
The sequels tried to explain too much, destroying that mystique in the process, and because the original wasn't written as a trilogy, the writers had to retrofit details of the universe they were expanding. At the end of the first movie, we didn't know anything about Architects or multiple iterations of the Matrix, or rogue programs like the Merovingian -- all we knew was that Neo had found a way to fight back against the machines, and he was about to pull the blindfold off the eyes of enslaved humans.
Instead of a story about emancipation, focused on characters, we got a tepid reluctant hero story made even cheesier by the writing and acting. The second and third movies also suffered because the Wachowskis tried to tell the story across mediums, including video games, comic books and anime.
The problem is that most people taking their seats in the theater to see The Matrix Reloaded didn't see The Animatrix, or the cut scenes of Into The Matrix, or anything from the other mediums, so there were things missing from the narrative right from the start.
|
|