MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB: MATRIX REBOOTED: No?

matrix trucks

17 Responses to “BYOB: MATRIX REBOOTED: No?”

  1. Monco says:

    No.

  2. Pete B. says:

    A thousand times no.

  3. Krazy Eyes says:

    Why reboot this? Nobody is asking for this.

  4. Mike says:

    Meh, this is a series with a great setup but disappointing follow through. It’s ripe to go in several interesting directions. Could be decent. Could suck. But I don’t see The Matrix as an untouchable film.

  5. brack says:

    The problem is the remake would be a retread, of a film that was a retread of a retread of a retread. In other words, just do something similar but change it up with a bunch of other funky stuff and call it something else, not The Matrix.

  6. CG says:

    No. Pointless.

  7. I felt the same when Warner wanted a ‘The Wild Bunch’ reboot.

  8. palmtree says:

    Why not? It’s not as if The Matrix sequels are these masterpieces that we don’t want desecrated. And The Matrix has a lot of potential left unexplored.

  9. Bulldog68 says:

    The writer says it’s not a reboot but just another story in the universe. I could live with that. But it better be good. The best I can think of is Terminator 2 that basically became the standard bearer on its release much like The original Matrix did. It would need to be another something we haven’t seen before to even qualify as being worthy of the original.

    http://www.darkhorizons.com/the-matrix-reboot-writer-says-not-a-reboot/

  10. Sideshow Bill says:

    No reboot. Another story in that universe? Fine. But I’m not interested really. I didn’t like the sequels and I still, all these years later, don’t understand what the hell was going on in them. Maybe I’m dumb.

    And while we’re at it DO NOT re-remake THE FLY. Cronenberg’s is perfect. It can’t be improved on. It still holds up in every single way. It’s still powerful. Don’t do it.

  11. Spacesheik says:

    No.

    Honestly why do studios remake beloved films?
    Instead of crapping on the legacy of flicks like THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, FOOTLOOSE, THE OMEN, GHOSTBUSTERS, TOTAL RECALL etc and doing a piss poor job remaking/rebooting them, why not remake cult films or films that could use the updating, stuff like CAPRICORN ONE, THE AMATEUR, SOYLENT GREEN, CASSANDRA CROSSING, THE FURY, etc?

    For example throw in Global warming, government conspiracies, put Michael Caine/Anthony Hopkins in the Edward G. Robinson role, Denzel Washington in the Charlton Heston role, you’ve got a topical hit right there – thats a better bet than remaking something like DEATH WISH.

    Studios are fucking lazy.

  12. EtGuild2 says:

    Eh, I find YOUNG MORPHEUS just as interesting an idea as YOUNG HAN SOLO, but maybe that’s just me. On the other hand, doesn’t WB realize this business model of there’s with new OCEAN’s, TOMB RAIDER, SCOOBY DOO, giant monster reboots etc is unsustainable at some point? Seems like they’re trying to have 10 franchises going at once, and the highest grossing ones (DC and BEASTS) already have serious problems. Their best positioned franchise at this point might be CONJURING/ANNABELLE, which would be 6 profitable movies deep at this point if it was any other studio.

    Take it easy guys, you don’t need to release 10 blockbusters a year.

  13. palmtree says:

    Yeah, but if you’re going to have a franchise, I’d rather it be The Matrix, which is still a great way of introducing philosophical concepts to a mass audience. You just need to also have a director and writer who is populist enough to entertain AND explain. For example, Christopher Nolan would hit it out of the park.

  14. Ben Kabak says:

    Everyone saying “No” here would be the first people paying to see it opening day.

  15. Pete B. says:

    ^ That would be a no.

  16. YancySkancy says:

    “Everyone saying ‘No’ here would be the first people paying to see it opening day.”

    While I’m sure that’s not strictly true, I think maybe it does get at a certain truth about folks who obsessively keep up with “the current cinema.” If you’re the type of person who can’t help him- or herself from seeing every new movie, news of unwanted remakes must be hell, because you know that no matter how much you’ll probably hate it, you HAVE to go see it. The rest of us just go, “Matrix reboot, eh? I’ll be skipping that.”

  17. Sideshow Bill says:

    I like the first film. Hated the sequels. I have no interest in anymore so, no, I wouldn’t be “first in line” to see it. I don’t care what they do with the property. I just have no interest in seeing it any further.

    I’ll take Speed Racer 2 though. Hell yes, as long as the Wachowski sisters are involved.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“When Bay keeps these absurd plot-gears spinning, he’s displaying his skill as a slick, professional entertainer. But then there are the images of motion—I hesitate to say, of things in motion, because it’s not clear how many things there are in the movie, instead of mere digital simulations of things. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that there’s a car chase through London, seen from the level of tires, that could have gone on for an hour, um, tirelessly. What matters is that the defenestrated Cade saves himself by leaping from drone to drone in midair like a frog skipping among lotus pads; that he and Vivian slide along the colossal, polished expanses of sharply tilting age-old fields of metal like luge Olympians. What matters is that, when this heroic duo find themselves thrust out into the void of inner space from a collapsing planet, it has a terrifyingly vast emptiness that Bay doesn’t dare hold for more than an instant lest he become the nightmare-master. What matters is that the enormous thing hurtling toward Earth is composed in a fanatical detail that would repay slow-motion viewing with near-geological patience. Bay has an authentic sense of the gigantic; beside the playful enormity of his Transformerized universe, the ostensibly heroic dimensions of Ridley Scott’s and Christopher Nolan’s massive visions seem like petulant vanities.”
~ Michael Bay Gives Richard Brody A Tingle

How do you see film evolving in this age of Netflix?

I thought the swing would be quicker and more violent. There have been two landmark moments in the history of French film. First in 1946, with the creation of the CNC under the aegis of Malraux. He saved French cinema by establishing the advance on receipts and support fund mechanisms. We’re all children of this political invention. Americans think that the State gives money to French films, but they’re wrong. Through this system, films fund themselves!

The other great turning point came by the hand of Jack Lang in the 1980s, after the creation of Canal+. While television was getting ready to become the nemesis of film, he created the decoder, and a specific broadcasting space between film and television, using new investments for film. That once again saved French film.

These political decisions are important. We’re once again facing big change. If our political masters don’t take control of the situation and new stakeholders like Netflix, Google and Amazon, we’re headed for disaster. We need to create obligations for Internet service providers. They can’t always be against film. They used to allow piracy, but now that they’ve become producers themselves, they’re starting to see things in a different light. This is a moment of transition, a strong political act needs to be put forward. And it can’t just be at national level, it has to happen at European level.

Filmmaker Cédric Klapisch