2 had some pacing issues, but all 3 are amazing works of science fiction, the last 2 suffering from understandably not being able to top the first movie's reveal of "Your entire existence was a lie." 2 and 3 expand on the lore while visually presenting deep philosophical concepts, but as studios have learned, trying to appeal to the widest audience means not challenging your audience.

They have since gone so far with that lesson, it has lead to stuff like the new Star Wars trilogy, a plotless trainwreck of endless appeals to nostalgia so blatant I'm surprised they didn't have force ghost yoda turn to the camera and smile impishly like austin powers.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

2 was trash because 3 didn't save it when it could have.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Hey the second wasn't good but I wouldn't lump it with the other two

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which one?

[–] MakunaHatata@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

First one of course

[–] cloudless@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The next ones are:

The Matrix Reduced
The Matrix Reused
The Matrix Recycled
The Matrix Retired

[–] casmael@lemm.ee 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The Matrix Ribbed (for her pleasure)

[–] jxk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

The Matrix Diagonalized The Matrix Transposed The Matrix Decomposed

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 27 points 11 months ago

The matrix trilogy:

The Matrix

Animatrix

The Matrix 4

[–] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I say the matrix movie because I only vaguely remember the first one.

[–] TwinTusks@bitforged.space 2 points 11 months ago

I remember the first one just fine, its the other that are blurry

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is only 1 movie and it's The Matrix. The fuck you talking about "trilogy?" You must be confusing The Animatrix with the real movie. It's the only way.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The trilogy is far better than the latest abomination of a movie that came out a few years ago. I felt like that one was created solely to cash in on the franchise name.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 28 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, it was. They even said so in the movie. It could only have been more obvious if Lana Wachowski had looked into the camera and said: "Yes, I am only making this movie so that the studio doesn't make it worse."

[–] FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I have never seen a movie argue so vehemently against its own existence before. It's worth seeing just for that.

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

This is actually why I think it is "underrated". I mean it isn't a good movie or even a good story to begin with, but this insanity seems so intentional, so meta, so self destructive - it's worth seeing.

Also, call me crazy but I think that it would have made an unironically interesting theater play. A lot of scenes scream theater and would have worked much better in that setting. The whatshisname the french guy blabbing his monologue during that fighting scene is so obviously theatrical, and the clips from the first movie being projected in a theater would also work with just half the cringe.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I like the theory that she purposefully make it so bad the franchise was killed but in a way that executives would still think it's a great movie that will make a lot of money.

[–] original_reader@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Until someone will "reboot" it. 😒

[–] GTG3000@programming.dev 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Shame they only ever made the one movie though.

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

True.

https://xkcd.com/566/

[–] Korne127@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Honestly, that comic just didn't age well.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I say The Matrix Trilogy because I don't like the first one

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

HERETIC!

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I expected my comment to be more controversial but apparently, people are really for the truth. Good.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

>:(

[–] lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

I say The Matrix Trilogy because Resurrections had so many references and clips from the first movie that it doesn't count as its own film.

[–] farent@lemmy.scam-mail.me 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I say the Matrix Trilogy because Matrix Revolutions is an antimemetic cognitohazard inconceivable by the human mind.

[–] blackluster117@possumpat.io 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I love the mech fight scenes in Zion too much to agree. Worth it for that alone.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

When the squids first breach Zion and there's that shot of every single ~~APC~~ APU firing at them... just

[–] blackluster117@possumpat.io 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Mifune soloing an entire swarm like a badass. Pure kino.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

(☝◞‸◟)☞

[–] synae 6 points 11 months ago

I say The Matrix Nonalogy* because there is one movie and several short films in The Animatrix (The Second Renaissance was needlessly cut into 2 parts)

(*no I don't)

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I say the Matrix Cliff's Notes because Animatrix is better than the rest of it.

[–] littletranspunk@lemmus.org 4 points 11 months ago

Nah, there was only one. It's a shame they didn't make more.

Screenshot_20240316-163935-329

[–] josefo@leminal.space 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If both Wachowskis were not involved, then it's not canon. Everything else is just heresy.

[–] paperemail@links.rocks 1 points 10 months ago

That’s the best argument I’ve heard so far