mldardy Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 I remember almost walking out of the theater about 20 minutes into this movie. Coming off the lackluster Reloaded and reading the reviews that this one was worse and then actually seeing that it was after the first 20 minutes make me almost get up and leave. I stayed and didn't really enjoy the rest of the movie. I own the trilogy on Blu-Ray and have watched Revolutions a couple of time since then and it isn't as bad as it was in 2003. It's still the worst of the three by far. I really wish some of these studios could see that sometimes leaving a movie at one is ok. Much like The Hangover is another example I can think of to just leave it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 10 hours ago, mldardy said: I really wish some of these studios could see that sometimes leaving a movie at one is ok. I'm not sure the Matrix is a good example about studios not leaving a movie at one. Can you imagine the phone call between WB et Village Roadshows: WB: He, do you guys remember the planned sequel The Wachowskis had for the Matrix, that you did promise that you will have the rights to finance up to 50% to become co-owner of their profit in the deal you took in financing the first one ? VR: Oh yeahhhhhhhhh WB: We are not doing them. VR: The Wachowskis don't want to do it anymore, they accepted to do Batman Begin you proposed them instead ? WB: No, no, they really do, they are suing us trying to acquire the sequels rights they are ready to finance them themselves if needed, we don't want to do them to protect the first movie legacy, those sequels look really strange. VR: Well we will finance at 100% or with them no problem, we will have no problem finding financier if we need to. WB: You do not understand, we will take legal measure to make sure the sequels the filmmakers of the first entry want to do will not happen. Those Matrix movies were not really a studio developed products. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mldardy Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 5 hours ago, Barnack said: I'm not sure the Matrix is a good example about studios not leaving a movie at one. Can you imagine the phone call between WB et Village Roadshows: WB: He, do you guys remember the planned sequel The Wachowskis had for the Matrix, that you did promise that you will have the rights to finance up to 50% to become co-owner of their profit in the deal you took in financing the first one ? VR: Oh yeahhhhhhhhh WB: We are not doing them. VR: The Wachowskis don't want to do it anymore, they accepted to do Batman Begin you proposed them instead ? WB: No, no, they really do, they are suing us trying to acquire the sequels rights they are ready to finance them themselves if needed, we don't want to do them to protect the first movie legacy, those sequels look really strange. VR: Well we will finance at 100% or with them no problem, we will have no problem finding financier if we need to. WB: You do not understand, we will take legal measure to make sure the sequels the filmmakers of the first entry want to do will not happen. Those Matrix movies were not really a studio developed products. Yeah I didn't know they had a planned sequel. Smart ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, mldardy said: Yeah I didn't know they had a planned sequel. Smart ass. Even if they were not planned (they could have been lying about the sequels being planned in interviews, I don't know), it is still the people that wrote the first movie that made the sequels, with total freedom to do what they want and final cut privilege. It was not a studio not living a movie alone and deciding to go with sequels, it is still the artists doing it, no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mldardy Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Barnack said: Even if they were not planned (they could have been lying about the sequels being planned in interviews, I don't know), it is still the people that wrote the first movie that made the sequels, with total freedom to do what they want and final cut privilege. It was not a studio not living a movie alone and deciding to go with sequels, it is still the artists doing it, no ? You could have just said they planned the sequels instead of all that fake back and forth between WB and VR that you did. As for the sequels I just think the way the first movie ended was the perfect way to end that movie and leave it at that but as you said no matter what happened they were going to do another one. That was the point I was making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Tele nailed it. A delay would have done the film no favors in terms of its public perception, and it would have caused a series of huge moves on their summer slate. More to the point, it was still expected to be a big moneymaker despite the mixed reception to Reloaded in May; it's just that the expectations weren't as astronomically high as they were for Reloaded, and yet the film still performed below that more modest range. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) Revolutions is one big climax with little to nothing to say on its own. As it is, it should have never been a separated movie from Reloaded. Edited February 16, 2017 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dxmatrixdt Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) big box office disappointment Edited May 14, 2018 by Thematrixfilm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinHood26 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 On February 15, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Webslinger said: Tele nailed it. A delay would have done the film no favors in terms of its public perception, and it would have caused a series of huge moves on their summer slate. More to the point, it was still expected to be a big moneymaker despite the mixed reception to Reloaded in May; it's just that the expectations weren't as astronomically high as they were for Reloaded, and yet the film still performed below that more modest range. Idk If Pirate 3 comes in November not the next summer it misses 300m If it didn't matter then why has no movie since ever followed this pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 5 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said: Idk If Pirate 3 comes in November not the next summer it misses 300m If it didn't matter then why has no movie since ever followed this pattern? Its not that it didn't matter, it's that they didn't really have any other good options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJaros Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) On 2/15/2017 at 6:53 PM, Webslinger said: Tele nailed it. A delay would have done the film no favors in terms of its public perception, and it would have caused a series of huge moves on their summer slate. More to the point, it was still expected to be a big moneymaker despite the mixed reception to Reloaded in May; it's just that the expectations weren't as astronomically high as they were for Reloaded, and yet the film still performed below that more modest range. The problem with Tele's experiment is that he limits the horizon for Revolutions release to just the next year. But why? Usually, sequels to big SFX action movies are spaced two or three years apart. Had Revolutions been released summer of 2005 or 2006, they might have avoided Reloaded fatigue, maybe could have marketed it better, heck even re-edited or re-shot scenes to make it a better movie. There was no obvious reason to rush-release #3. Edited February 18, 2017 by SteveJaros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxmoser3 Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 WB racked dough on sequels that year, T3 did profitable but not amazing but good enough, The Matrix sequels both had mixed receptions. Reloaded had mixed word of mouth, it now leans to more people saying they like it now but Revolutions built up the "finale" hype WB wanted $$$ and they looked over hmmm what do we have? It would've been interesting to see how well this film would've done if it came out on May 14,2004 instead(sorry Troy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 The Matrix was deader than disco by the mid-2000s, so I seriously doubt that waiting until 2005-2006 to do Revolutions would have helped all that much, if at all. It became immediately apparent as soon as Reloaded unspooled that the Wachowskis just happened to catch lightning in a bottle with The Matrix. They're so far out there in terms of the ideas that interest them that they were never going to settle for making cookie-cutter blockbuster after cookie-cutter blockbuster, and none of their work after the first Matrix connected with more than a devoted cult following. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 On 2/17/2017 at 4:59 PM, SteveJaros said: The problem with Tele's experiment is that he limits the horizon for Revolutions release to just the next year. But why? Usually, sequels to big SFX action movies are spaced two or three years apart. Had Revolutions been released summer of 2005 or 2006, they might have avoided Reloaded fatigue, maybe could have marketed it better, heck even re-edited or re-shot scenes to make it a better movie. There was no obvious reason to rush-release #3. I contained it to the following year because the two movies were shot concurrently. The plan had always been to release them within a relatively short period of time and so that's how the general release schedule had been built out. To talk about reshooting and/or re-editing the movie misses the concept of what it actually means to make a movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJimbo Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 the 2nd and 3rd film had some really cool action scenes, they were very disappointing though. Pole fight in second film. Staircase fight in the second film at the french guys place. Squid robots vs Mechs scene in 3rd film. Final boss fight in 3rd film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJaros Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Telemachos said: I contained it to the following year because the two movies were shot concurrently. The plan had always been to release them within a relatively short period of time and so that's how the general release schedule had been built out. To talk about reshooting and/or re-editing the movie misses the concept of what it actually means to make a movie. First, the fact that two and three were shot at the same time with the plan being to release them close together doesn't mean three actually has to be released on the heels of two. Second, movie scenes are often re-shot and/or re-edited during the process of making a movie. It happens pretty frequently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, SteveJaros said: First, the fact that two and three were shot at the same time with the plan being to release them close together doesn't mean three actually has to be released on the heels of two. Second, movie scenes are often re-shot and/or re-edited during the process of making a movie. It happens pretty frequently. You're looking at this with 20/20 hindsight. Why, in mid-2003 or before, should they have delayed and/or decided to completely change the third film? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJaros Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Telemachos said: You're looking at this with 20/20 hindsight. Why, in mid-2003 or before, should they have delayed and/or decided to completely change the third film? I never said "completely change". As for hindsight, not really, as I was rather shocked when I found out circa September/October 2003 that "Revolutions" would be coming out in a month or so. Given the weaknesses I perceived in "Reloaded", I expected that they might want to take another look at what they had in the can with "Revolutions". My POV then was someone who loved the 1999 film but was *very* disappointed in "Reloaded". Oh well, it was what it was. Edited February 20, 2017 by SteveJaros 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, SteveJaros said: I never said "completely change". As for hindsight, not really, as I was rather shocked when I found out circa September/October 2003 that "Revolutions" would be coming out in a month or so. Given the weaknesses I perceived in "Reloaded", I expected that they might want to take another look at what they had in the can with "Revolutions". My POV then was someone who loved the 1999 film but was *very* disappointed in "Reloaded". Oh well, it was what it was. Yes, I understand the frustration with what it ended up being. But the hard thing is, it's not like your perspective about REVOLUTIONS (or mine) would be readily obvious for someone within WB (or the Wachowskis themselves), because movies aren't this objective, black-or-white thing. Even if someone had concerns at that point, it's debatable (1) what could or should be done; (2) how much that might cost; and (3) going back to my original point, at that time the ripple effect across WB's entire release schedule would've been massive. If you felt that in 2000-2002 they should've retooled or rewritten some of it -- perhaps, but then again that's the difference between a script and a movie. In terms of release dates, obviously I remember a ton of excitement about RELOADED -- and also excitement that REVOLUTIONS was coming out so quickly. 2003 was shaping up to be the year of The Matrix (along with being the concluding exclamation point of LOTR). I don't remember reading or hearing anything about people thinking they should delay REVOLUTIONS, even after RELOADED came out. Most people wanted REVOLUTIONS to come out even sooner, since it would (in theory) answer the cliffhanger questions and wrap up all the interesting stuff that RELOADED introduced but didn't complete. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeCee Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Even in hindsight it would have been self defeating to move Revolutions after the reception for for Reloaded. I've only ever seen Revolutions once. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...