Movies: Presumably 2024, maybe Beyond

Weren’t three enough? Weren’t four enough?

Warner: No.

2 Likes

Wasn’t one enough? I like the first one, but I do find it a bit overrated.

3 Likes

I never bothered with the others. But it has to be said the original MATRIX was quite influential and a big deal at the time - for a time. It’s the perfection of the Hollywood principle of style over substance.

There is at best a ‘philosophical’ grain to be found at its core, though that’s probably largely ignored or misunderstood by most audiences. It was more for the benefit of the feuilleton and later the hardcore Reddit/4Chan crowd. By now it has just ran its course. I struggle to see why this is reheated at all.

3 Likes

I find many such grains, each pulling in different directions.

1 Like

Now I am curious.

1 Like

One could address it from various perspectives - cognitive, religious, sociological, so on so forth - but to me it all boils down to whether one subscribes to determinism or indeterminism. Is there a free will or not? Can we choose to escape the ‘Matrix’?

But this conundrum cannot actually be solved from within; neither within a ‘Matrix’ nor any set of observable reality. It’s essentially an unsolvable concept (of mathematics just as well as of philosophy) because even if we apply strictly materialistic, deterministic terms and conditions it would still mean our belief in a free will must demonstrably be a fundamental function of our conscious mind and awareness.

We all think we’re autonomous, independent sentient beings with a range of potential options of action or inaction at any given moment. We’d also think so if we were programmed characters in a simulation - or the creations of an all-knowing, all-controlling ‘Watchmaker’-god who got a plan for every atom in the universe.

We cannot truly know whether our reality is ‘real’ but must act on the assumption it is. As most of us usually do every day. The most we can achieve with our cognitive facilities with any reasonable certainty is an awareness of the potential limitations to our realisation.

2 Likes

I truly thought the franchise was stone cold dead and never to be seen again. As someone who has a lot of nostalgia for the movies I quite liked Resurrections, despite the terrible box office result. It honoured the characters and felt like a logical continuation of the story.

If they improve the action to resemble the original trilogy I’m going to be excited, especially if Keanu and Carrie-Anne are back. This announcement also makes another game more possible, which still probably won’t happen, but a new movie can only help. I was hoping Resurrections brought the franchise back in a big way (Animatrix 2, etc) but it didn’t happen.

2 Likes

Well, one thing I suppose that’s working in this new Matrix film’s favor is that I don’t think that it’s conceivably possible that it could be worse than that last one.

1 Like

Interesting. For me it is the mix of Christian and Buddhist thought that makes my head explode–syncretism run amok. Though now I will have to look at the films through the lens of determinism/free will. I will say that THE MATRIX RELOADED is my favorite of the three, and the one to which I return.

1 Like

As I said, I never went beyond THE MATRIX; for me the story was effectively finished with this entry because, whatever further layers or permutations one ads, logic would always demand we arrive again at the same fundamental uncertainty posed in that first film.

In recent years we witness various different scientific fields inquiring related theories, from ‘multiverses’ to a ‘simulated universe’ and serious intellectual heavyweights ponder these ideas and their implications. We seem to exist in a mathematical universe, so the natural consequence would be to assume that everything mathematically possible would also have a place in such a system.

But the practical impossibility to test such theories firmly places them in the field of philosophy and personal preference.

4 Likes

My problem with THE MATRIX was that aside from the fresh and interesting special effects it was mainly a shoot-em down actioner. The long dialogue sequences in the second film interrupting the brawls and bullets were just clumsy exposition for even less involving and less original plot ideas of the third one. The promises of the first film were never fulfilled but rather exposed as an afterthought not thought out that well.

2 Likes

I guess that is what I kind of enjoy (remember, I am DAF superfan, so no one should be surprised at me loving an outlier movie).

The ideas of return/rebirth, and the fact that the Neos are different each time, appeal to my Buddhist self. In the third film when they try to wrap it all up is where I look for the exit. But somehow, this unresolved middle film works for me–almost like a koan I use to deepen my practice.

2 Likes

It’s always interesting to see how you read a film when I apparently react on a rather pragmatic level, mixed with my gut reaction and often wrong expectations.

2 Likes

https://twitter.com/HollywoodHandle/status/1775576721900941319?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1775576721900941319|twgr^4d6c00dc87ddf050e25a146449673b6aebc4a695|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbr.com%2Fmufasa-the-lion-king-first-look-disney%2F

1 Like

In return, I always enjoy your perspective which, while being pragmatic, is also strongly humanist, and demanding of good storytelling and narrative management. A little meta goes a long way with SAF.

And because of this discussion (thanks to all), and composing a response, I now understand why I enjoy RELOADED and not the other movies. I knew I did, but had never known before why I did.

2 Likes

I’m a little nervous that nuclear bomb movies seem to be the rage these days…

4 Likes

If the horror of it is made clear we need those movies. Especially since too many don’t know or disregard the world ending effects of it.

And „The day after“ made Reagan reconsider his opinion on the nuclear bomb.

1 Like

It’s important to remember nuclear capabilities, while being an integral component of a select few armed forces, are far more prevalent in fiction than actual military strategy and tactics.

Those wielding such capabilities do of course so with vast implications on their politics and geo strategic import and ambitions (we witness a murderous aggression in Europe on the sole threat of the aggressor to escalate the scale of their campaign also with nuclear weapons).

But the actual and concrete tactical value of these systems is no longer without limitations. Potential targets are few and scattered throughout the battlefield. Conflict research shows conventional weapons are still the means of choice even between nuclear powers. The old adage holds true, who shoots first dies second.

We are rightfully concerned about the state of the world and potential consequences of a nuclear escalation, no doubt about it. But the currently greater danger are conventional conflicts running out of control. As they have been doing for decades already.

1 Like

Moving forward!

4 Likes
3 Likes