Biggest movie Disappointments

[JunkMonkey]

Then you were simply mislead. It certainly wasn't advertised as such.

It may not have been advertised as such but, by the time I got round to seeing it, it had certainly gathered a word of mouth reputation for 'making you think'.

That a lot of Q-annonny*, election denying, flat earth, Great Reset types use metaphors and imagery from the films says a lot about the depth of the films and raises all sorts of questions like; if the Matrix 'made them think' what the hell had they been doing with their brains up till then?

Not a lot I suspect.




*Q-Annonny - Mediaeval conspiracy theories.

 

[Swank]

It may not have been advertised as such but, by the time I got round to seeing it, it had certainly gathered a word of mouth reputation for 'making you think'.

That a lot of Q-annonny*, election denying, flat earth, Great Reset types use metaphors and imagery from the films says a lot about the depth of the films and raises all sorts of questions like; if the Matrix 'made them think' what the hell had they been doing with their brains up till then?

Not a lot I suspect.




*Q-Annonny - Mediaeval conspiracy theories.

I don't think it's the filmmakers' fault that most people are idiots.

 

[Toby Frost]

True, one good way of knowing that something is absolute drivel is that the speaker uses the blue/red pill metaphor.

 

[Orcadian]

... If the Matrix 'made them think' what the hell had they been doing with their brains up till then? Not a lot I suspect.

The strong impression I have from listening and talking to people is that - honestly - most folk do not do a lot of deep thinking. They tend to focus on how to make some life/family thing happen (or stop something from happening). But ideas? Not so much.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I don't think it's the filmmakers' fault that most people are idiots.

True but:

"Our films were never intended for a passive audience. There are enough of those kinds of films being made. We wanted our audience to have to work, to have to think, to have to actually participate to enjoy them."
The Wachowskis

The Matrix Online - IGN

The Matrix Online has been in full swing for a couple of weeks now. To help peel back some of the mystery of the game, writer Paul Chadwick (of Concrete fame) managed to corner Larry and Andy Wachowski. Paul asked them a few questions about their expectations and intentions with The Matrix Online.

www.ign.com

 

[Swank]

True but:

"Our films were never intended for a passive audience. There are enough of those kinds of films being made. We wanted our audience to have to work, to have to think, to have to actually participate to enjoy them."
The Wachowskis

The Matrix Online - IGN

The Matrix Online has been in full swing for a couple of weeks now. To help peel back some of the mystery of the game, writer Paul Chadwick (of Concrete fame) managed to corner Larry and Andy Wachowski. Paul asked them a few questions about their expectations and intentions with The Matrix Online.

www.ign.com

And I would agree with this. It just doesn't mean that the makers are trying to teach epistemology or any other kind of philosophy. The Matrix's first third is a mystery and is confusing if you aren't open to watching carefully. I believe that is what they are referencing.

The Matrix is an action film, but it isn't dumb or simple.

 

[paeng]

The Star Wars prequels, which became dreary political stories, and the sequels, which rehashed the original trilogy; the Alien franchise, which started to go in many directions after the third movie; the "nu-Trek" movies which no longer have much to say, the Mad Max franchise with the fourth one rehashing material from the first three, and mostly the second; Marvel and DC superhero movies which include amateurish filming and storytelling (e.g., telling instead of showing) plus, like the Terminator series, forced to come up with or contend with bizarre devices like moving back and forth in timelines or coming up with alternative ones, etc.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The 1969 sci fi The Monitors come to mind . Its mistake was that it was being based on a very weak Kieth Laumer novel of the same name . But this one with its sheerer the top silliness does have entertainment value .




The Matrix gets funnier and funnier every time I see it. It attempts at profound are really quite clumsy and ham handed . The silly moves that defy physics and martial arts are laugh out loud funny when sit back and really look st them objectively .



It bombed at that the box office for a very good reason , It was boring and, how could they really top the first film? They couldn't .

Blade Runner was a great, iconic movie. It didn't require a sequel; it's open-endedness was one of the things that make it so appealing.

The second movie I hated first time around, second time I watched I thought it was OK. But there was never a need to continue/complete Deckard's story, and the one real surprise for me was Harrison Ford agreeing to be in it.

 

[BAYLOR]

Blade Runner was a great, iconic movie. It didn't require a sequel; it's open-endedness was one of the things that make it so appealing.

Blade Runner is science fiction noir and a classic . Even today, it still looks pretty good.

The second movie I hated first time around, second time I watched I thought it was OK. But there was never a need to continue/complete Deckard's story, and the one real surprise for me was Harrison Ford agreeing to be in it.

The second movie was " Meh "

Why did Harrison Ford want to be in the sequel? Money, money snd more money of course .

 

[Swank]

Blade Runner was a great, iconic movie. It didn't require a sequel; it's open-endedness was one of the things that make it so appealing.

The second movie I hated first time around, second time I watched I thought it was OK. But there was never a need to continue/complete Deckard's story, and the one real surprise for me was Harrison Ford agreeing to be in it.

A better use of Ford than the 4th and 5th Jones movies.

 

[Vince W]

Blade Runner was a great, iconic movie. It didn't require a sequel; it's open-endedness was one of the things that make it so appealing.

The second movie I hated first time around, second time I watched I thought it was OK. But there was never a need to continue/complete Deckard's story, and the one real surprise for me was Harrison Ford agreeing to be in it.

Blade Runner never needed a sequel, but Ridley Scott did do a prequel (IMO) with Black Rain. It's one of Scott's least talked about films but it's one I enjoy every time I watch it.

 

[Vladd67]

Wasn't Blade Runner a bit of a failure at the box office too? Like a few other "classics" it only became popular once released on video?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Wasn't Blade Runner a bit of a failure at the box office too? Like a few other "classics" it only became popular once released on video?

It was released in the same month as ET and Wrath of Khan; direct competitors that gave a much more immediate gratification than this slow burner of a movie.