Finally saw The Matrix and Dark City (no real spoilers)

[Naniyue]

I had never seen The Matrix before, but finally did. I liked the fleshed out take on robots needing humans, and their insidious way of having this need met. I also saw Dark City, preferring its presentation and philosophy of the soul, but as both films show, there can be individual spins on the same basic premise. While it's obvious which one I prefer, I still suggest owning both, but don't forget that Star Trek - The Next Generation's holodeck, or even the original Space Battleship Yamato's simulation room, came out well before either film.

[Graf Zahl]

Matrix - good movie, if it was't for the awful sequels which destroyed everything...

[Cherno]

Matrix - good movie, if it was't for the awful sequels which destroyed everything...

I agree! I remember seeing the first movie, and being blown away by the fresh take on the action genre, and then going to watch Reloaded in hte theatre with friends only to be utterly confused and disappointed.

I like Dark City, too, especially since it's all very noirish and sinister and it has great production values, especially the set design. IIRC, The Matrix and Dark City have used the same sets for some scenes, particularly the beginning of The Matrix in the dilapitated building and on the roof was used as-is in DC.

[Nevander]

My theory on the Matrix is

---

that there are actually multiple matrices, with the inner matrix being another form of control to make the people (still in the outer matrix) believe they have hope and are fighting for freedom. That could explain how Neo had powers outside of the inner matrix, as well as being able to see when blinded and other supernatural shit. I don't know if this theory was ever proven or disproven but even if disproven I don't really care because it makes sense to me.

[Naniyue]

From what I've gathered, I don't intend to watch the sequels. Same goes for anything past Terminator 2. In my experience, most sequels just don't work.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

I would argue that not even Terminator 2 itself works as a sequel. Sure, the special effects and production values are better, but the movie as a whole is literally more of the same - only dumber and cornier. I mean, when you look back at the original, it is such a dark and bleak movie in comparison, it basically feels like a John Carpenter horror movie.

Anyway, having watched a couple fanedit of the Matrix sequels, I can safely say the problem mostly lies in editing. Basically, remove a few unnecessary subplots and characters and they become more or less just as enjoyable as the original, minus perhaps the novelty. Plus in this day and age, it is kind of cool to have an entire trilogy with a large cast of persons of colour playing characters who fight against an uncaring, oppressive system. I mean, the Wachowski even manage to get Cornel West to play a minor character. That is kind of cool.

[Chris]

Sure, the special effects and production values are better, but the movie as a whole is literally more of the same - only dumber and cornier. I mean, when you look back at the original, it is such a dark and bleak movie in comparison, it basically feels like a John Carpenter horror movie.

It's more of the same, but different?

It depends on what you consider a true scotsman sequel. Does a movie have to be the same genre to be a sequel? Does it have to have (most of) the same characters, following the same story, or follow an overarching plot? Alien and Aliens is another good example. The original Alien was much more toward the horror and suspense side of things, while Aliens had more action. Both Aliens and Terminator 2 are good movies in their own right, and follow an overarching plot started by their predecessors, although don't quite fit the same genre as their predecessors. Does that make them bad sequels? I would say no... as long as it stands on its own merits, and fits the setting of a preexisting movie, I'd say it's a good sequel. It's not as if having a good sequel erases the original, you can enjoy both for different reasons.

[Naniyue]

I was just about to use the Alien and Aliens example myself!

[Scripten]

Sure, the special effects and production values are better, but the movie as a whole is literally more of the same - only dumber and cornier. I mean, when you look back at the original, it is such a dark and bleak movie in comparison, it basically feels like a John Carpenter horror movie.

It's more of the same, but different?

It depends on what you consider a true scotsman sequel. Does a movie have to be the same genre to be a sequel? Does it have to have (most of) the same characters, following the same story, or follow an overarching plot? Alien and Aliens is another good example. The original Alien was much more toward the horror and suspense side of things, while Aliens had more action. Both Aliens and Terminator 2 are good movies in their own right, and follow an overarching plot started by their predecessors, although don't quite fit the same genre as their predecessors. Does that make them bad sequels? I would say no... as long as it stands on its own merits, and fits the setting of a preexisting movie, I'd say it's a good sequel. It's not as if having a good sequel erases the original, you can enjoy both for different reasons.

I wonder how the movie would have done if it had been called Terminators. After all, there were more this time.

[Nevander]

The thing about the Terminator movies that never made sense is the time travel element. If (in the future) John Connor sends back Reese to protect Sarah Connor (in the past), why would he need to do that considering John exists. That means that the Terminators in all three pre-war movies fail, so why did they even try? The fact that anything even happens in the past means the terminators fail.

I guess maybe the point was to prepare Sarah and John for the future, the only way is to send Terminators back to build their survival skills and stuff so the future will be right. Throughout the movies there's the theme of being able to change fate and change the future, which I kinda think is bullshit. They should know this already from the events in the first movie. If a Terminator and Reese even go back in time, that means the war happens regardless of any actions and there's nothing to stop it. Once again, events in the past that had to happen to create the future.

Now I'm all confused...

[Chris]

The thing about the Terminator movies that never made sense is the time travel element. If (in the future) John Connor sends back Reese to protect Sarah Connor (in the past), why would he need to do that considering John exists. That means that the Terminators in all three pre-war movies fail, so why did they even try? The fact that anything even happens in the past means the terminators fail.

Basically, there's two possibilities with time-travel. Immutable time-travel means that what has happened has happened and what will happen will happen. It's all predetermined and you can't change events, just "actively observe" them (free will is a lie). Mutable time-travel means that you can change things that have happened, effectively creating an alternate time-line. With mutability, you could send someone back and cause events that didn't happen previously. That's actually one of the points of contention with Terminator 3, that the first two pushed the idea of self-determination and free will; mutability, changing your destiny. But the 3rd movie kinda forced the idea of immutability, that there's no escaping your predetermined future.

It's best to not think too hard about it, though. Time travel stories in general are pretty much impossible to do without a bunch of plot holes (unless it goes solely into the future and the concept of mutability never needs to arises), but they can still be thought-provoking and entertaining.

[Graf Zahl]

Anyway, having watched a couple fanedit of the Matrix sequels, I can safely say the problem mostly lies in editing. Basically, remove a few unnecessary subplots and characters and they become more or less just as enjoyable as the original, minus perhaps the novelty. Plus in this day and age, it is kind of cool to have an entire trilogy with a large cast of persons of colour playing characters who fight against an uncaring, oppressive system. I mean, the Wachowski even manage to get Cornel West to play a minor character. That is kind of cool.

No. No chance. My problem with the sequels was not the film's structure but their entire concept that made them ruin the first one for me.


Terminator is in a similar situation. The entire franchise went down the drain with part 3 but in this case I knew about it beforehand so I never watched those atrocities because if they ruined one of the best movies of the 80's, that'd be really sad.

[Cherno]

James Cameron himself said that in movies, not everything has to make sense as long as it's fun to watch. He mentioned that it's completely illogical for Skynet to have huge bodybuilder-type cyborgs acting as infiltrator units when they stand out from a crowd of humans of normal builld like, well burly bodybuilders do. No starving resistance soldier would ever be fooled. It's still far more enjoyable to see Arnold wrecking half of Los Angeles instead of some Mr. Everyday who would blend in much more effectively.

[Naniyue]

You have a good point there! Mr. Everyday isn't going to sell tickets.

I remember seeing The Terminator for the first time in the theater as a kid. Well, it was one of those places where you dine first, then watch the film. Anyway, it was simply cool. No need to figure out what was possible and what was nonsensical.

Even with The Matrix and Dark City, there are things any of us could point out that are incorrect, presumably impossible, unexplained gimmicks, or just flat out mistakes. But this can also be fun to do. Retconning and all that sort of thing.

[NeuralStunner]

The best way to approach the Matrix films is under the premise that

---

the Matrix everyone escaped from is just another layer of simulation, and nobody actually left. I apologize to your adblocker in advance.