• 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Hi, maybe it's a hypothetical question, but how would you made the sequels better? 
The movie on paper sounds great, has good special effects fighting and interesting themes of control and how Neo is like Jesus. But one thing I can't figure out is why are the sequel such shit? 
What is it about the movie that made it suck? Also, what would you have done differently? Are you sure your changes will make the movie better? ====> (you can't say don't make sequels, it was always planned as a trilogy from the very beginning) <====
I mean I might of changed the perspective from an overall perspective back to Neo so more ppl might care about it. But I played the matrix path of Neo and that didn't work. Maybe change the characters, or maybe less use of a blue screen. Or is the sequels doomed to begin with anyways? Maybe there is no answer to this question.

#2 Posted by Djeffers03 (2545 posts) -

I might be the only one but I personally thought the 2nd one was awesome, just as entertaining as the 1st. However the 3rd one was wank. Barely any of it actually took part in the matrix, instead it ended up taking place in a big old cavern where dudes shot at holes in the ceiling and neo flew through tunnels in a space ship. That, ladies and gentlemen, does not make for an entertaining movie.

#3 Posted by Adziboy (702 posts) -

More slow-mo bullet dodging and 'cool' things. 
God damn, I shouldve been a movie director.

#4 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Adziboy: Like I said, are you sure it would make the movie better? The sequels will still be terrible regardless of having more bullet time.
#5 Posted by Adziboy (702 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
@Adziboy: Like I said, are you sure it would make the movie better? The sequels will still be terrible regardless of having more bullet time.
Well it wouldn't hurt haha. I think Djeffers got it spot on to be honest. We need more... matrix. In the third film, weren't they fighting aliens and robots and shit? And constantly in a giant spacestation sort of place? I wanted to see them roaming around the 'real world' again and advancing the story from there. In the end, story. After the first, script writers must've just thought fuck it and filmed two movies full of shooting.
#6 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Okay so the third movies sucks, we know that now there isn't enough matrix. But the second movie is terrible too. I honestly went the theater before asking myself what did I just watch? A few hours of nothingness which probably could have been done in an hour. The fight scenes and motor cycle scenes did nothing to futher the story. The third movie had some kind of story though at least. But the second movie won't be able to stand on its own if it wasn't for all the action scenes. 
There was a DVD release where it has less Zion, can't remember what it's called, but will that make the movie much better? I mean making a good trilogy is difficult, there is always a lousy sequel in there somewhere, but both sequels to me was terrible. The first movie was well thought out because the producers didn't believe in them and they had to fight for everything that made it into the movie. The second movie, they were free by the producers to do anything they want because it was successful. That might of made it disapointing to me. Sort of like when George Lucas has to fight for everything to be in the first star war trilogy. Yet the second one he could do whatever he wants and totally made a terrible set of movies. Sure it also had a story line but the directing was terrible. At least that is what I attribute to why the matrix sequels sucks, they were free to do anything, yet they totally failed at it.

#7 Posted by IBurningStar (2190 posts) -

1. Have Trinity actually die at the end of the second film. 
2. Trim out a lot of the Zion stuff.  Use that screen time to have stuff happen in the matrix.
3. Not have a Dragonball Z style final battle.
4. Have the machines or the humans win. Not making peace and saying everything's cool.

#8 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@IBurningStar: Interesting points, but I want to use some counter points. 
1. trinity didn't die in the sequel to show him that in the real world, he can not save her. He lost his eyes too. 
2. Yeah I hate zion
3. well they were at their full power, both of them. Besides neo could fly in the second movie, so it's inevitable. If you take that out, then you have to take out neo flying. 
4. If the machines wins, then it's not a satisfying ending. Most movies are like good ending, bad ending and good ending again. If they didn't make peace, then agent smith will win and destroy the matrix. There will be no more room for more sequels. I think they will make more. 
You have good points and thanks for sharing them, but some of the things in the movie loosely makes sense in their context.
#10 Posted by Evilsbane (4738 posts) -

Never Show Zion.

#11 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

Completely change the ending. 
A little less pretentious bullshit, a little more straight up shit happening. 
Hey, off to the unpopular opinions thread to say that I think Revolutions was better than Reloaded by a million times and that I thought the zion stuff was the best parts.

#12 Posted by Daveyo520 (7000 posts) -

By not making them.

#13 Posted by Hansolol (488 posts) -

Reloaded is my favorite movie of all time.

#14 Posted by Inkerman (1455 posts) -

Towards the end of the second one I would have set it up so Neo and the other humans are fighting (inside the matrix) alongside programs sent by the machines in order to stop the Smith. Additionally, the Smith wouldn't be all consuming, but rather would control the government/law enforcement, kind of how the Agents do generally. Outside in the real world, Zion would be fighting against real machines controlled by the Smith, not by Deus Ex. The end would be the collapse of the matrix, death of the Architect and the Oracle, leaving it impossible to rebuild, plus the machines in the real world would be severely depleted, as would the humans, meaning they would have to work together in order to survive (I would show the start of this, instead of just leaving it an ambiguous 'peace').

#15 Posted by NTM (7542 posts) -

By making Neo go back in time to stop the Speed 2 movie from ever being released.

#16 Posted by sickVisionz (1268 posts) -

The third tried its hardest to get rid of everything that made the first two cool.  Starship Trooper/MechWarrior battles never came to my mind when I think about defining aspects of the series prior to 3.  I don't think they should have focused so much screen time to that. 
Plus that actual in-Matrix fights from 3 were pretty crappy and the worst in the series. 

The movie ending with an old married couple playing with their grandchild while a rainbow shines brightly in the background didn't help either. 
I didn't think the Matrix needed a sequel at all but if I had to make them, I'd basically keep most of reloaded and setup the story so that they stay in the Matrix rather than spend so much time in the real world not delivering any of the content that people watch Matrix movies for.  Reloaded pretty much did that but Revolutions didn't at all.

#17 Posted by DH69 (60 posts) -

I simply would've have made them, i was happy with how the matrix ended, and i didnt think they needed to continue any farther. Thats the main problem with movies now adays, the first one was great, and in no way needed a sequal, but they make one anyway because they think thats what fans want (the studio wants more money :p)

#18 Posted by Xdsk (268 posts) -

Personally I would have liked a little more back story on the machines and how they made their own civilisation. I realise this was touched on by Morpheus during the first film, but I would have liked an expansion to it. 
Furthermore, i would have liked more back story on the programs and the "anomalies" that came before Neo, sort of like a prequel or whatever. 
Oh and less Zion, humanity is cool and all but slo-mo back flips are better :D

#19 Posted by Rumour (95 posts) -

One of the major issues here as that Neo just becomes a giant powerhouse at the end of the first movie. It's very satisfying to see there, but it doesn't set the two sequels up very well. The viewer doesn't feel any tension throughout the second and third films because they know Neo is a giant badass and will basically succeed no matter what.

#20 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

I would have ended the first film with Neo not realising his full powers, instead just having an uncontrolled 'burst' to save himself after being shot.

The second film would then be a journey back into the Matrix to begin recruiting more people; perhaps there is a certain person they need, or perhaps Neo's being 'the One' awakens those around him to the fact that their lives arent real.

With their numbers swelling, the machines wage all-out war within and without the Matrix, leading to the defence of Zion while Neo leads the counter-attack within the Matrix. This film would end with Neo striking a massive blow against the Machines, ending their control, only to have Smith strike, infect the virus and possessing every plugged in human at the same time (zombies? Though I think of it more as the projections within Inception).

The third movie would be the humans entering the matrix to launch a full-scale war against Smith, which would be an excellent chance to show off the fact these guys can download whatever the fuck they want to make themselves massively dangerous.

The humans would be threatened with losing as the Smith virus slowly starts beating them, and worse every enemy they kill is lessening the surviving human population of Earth. Neo launches a commando raid on Smith's headquarters and fights him, gradually losing the fight even with the distraction of the humans outside the Matrix launching a suicidal attack on the base housing Smith's consciousness in the real world.

Right as all seems lost, the machines launch a suicidal strike on Smith, with every renegade program attacking him inside, even as their last forces from the Zion attack strike alongside the humans outside the matrix. Neo gets an opening and ends Smith, destroying the Matrix and unplugging all remaining humans simultaneously.

Desperate to save everyone and thankful for their assistance, Neo strikes a deal with the machines, who help to rescue as many people as possible from the ooze. When the dust settles, there is an uneasy truce, which is resolved by Neo giving the machines the underworld of earth to live in, in exchange for helping the humans head to the surface and begin the cleanup process.

Not perfect by any means, but I think this framework would have allowed the movies to keep the cool stuff (the matrix, fighting within the matrix) cranked to the max, would have eliminated the problem of Neo becoming godlike too early, would have kept Smith as the main badguy hidden for longer, and would have made the Zion stuff a little more interesting.

#21 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

The only way to make those sequels good was not to make them in the first place.

#22 Posted by biospank (657 posts) -

they could of gone a ghost in the shell where neo is gone or killed, observed by something, or something. And where the story takes place where Morpheus and a new dude have to find an ai hacker, if not the matrix will be destroyed and the human thingy that is in the real world will be zombie's or something and destroy zion.

#23 Posted by EuanDewar (5098 posts) -

Make the ultimate ending more like the ending to The Matrix: Path Of Neo. SUPERSMITH ENGAGE

#24 Posted by PenguinDust (12629 posts) -

Honestly, I don't remember anything about either of them.  I remember lots about the first, but the later ones are just a blur.  I recall a scene where a bunch of mechs are shooting something above them...spiders?  And wasn't there some old guy in a room?  I guess I would do something to give them more purpose because I don't care if they exist or not. 

#25 Posted by MackGyver (600 posts) -

I also thought the second one was great. Not on par with the first one but way better than the third one. The third one never clicked the same way as the other ones did for some reason.

#26 Edited by Kyle (2325 posts) -

Not completely muddy the entire idea of what the Matrix is and how it works, for one thing.

Other than that... Hmm... Weird. At first I liked the Matrix sequels, then I sort of came around and decided they weren't very good, but now that I actually sit here and try to quantify what exactly was bad about them, I sort of can't... They were just sort of boring. Everything in Zion was snore-inducing, and the Matrix scenes lacked any of the cool vibes or tension of the original. In Matrix 1, when they jack in and get all leather-jacketed/sunglasses-at-nighted out, it was like, "cool!" In the sequels, it felt more like "these people are silly..." Now that I think about it, I don't think there was a single "get to a phone" sequence in either of the sequels. I mean sure, that specific thing was already done in the original, but it's the complete lack of anything of that sort that makes the sequels weak. They made the Matrix almost an ancillary plot point. It doesn't play up any of the cool parts of the concept at all. Hell, the third movie barely featured the Matrix whatsoever.

The rivalry between Neo and Smith was cool, but I think Smith became way too important to the plot for his own good and had none of the great emotion that was shown in that interrogation scene in the original.

I think Justin McElroy's opening salvo in his Red Faction Armageddon review about how creators sometimes don't realize exactly what it is that makes their own creations great totally applies to The Matrix sequels. Not to say that they were all bad, though. I think there's a good deal of enjoyable stuff there, but they were a disappointment overall.

#27 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

It's great reading through some of these comments, some of them are totally thought out and all that jazz. Personally I don't know how I would have made them better because if I knew that I probably already would've and made a ton of money on it and not given a fuck about lesser people and just enjoyed having more money than I already have to begin with

#28 Posted by S0ndor (2716 posts) -

The 2nd one was awesome. The third one mainly took place outside of the matrix, which is why it kind of sucked IMO.

#29 Posted by Everyones_A_Critic (6311 posts) -

I was like 12 or 13 when those movies came out so as long as they shot stuff with guns I thought it was awesome.

#30 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -
@IBurningStar said:
1. Have Trinity actually die at the end of the second film.  2. Trim out a lot of the Zion stuff.  Use that screen time to have stuff happen in the matrix.3. Not have a Dragonball Z style final battle. 4. Have the machines or the humans win. Not making peace and saying everything's cool.
Whats wrong with dragon ball Z? and i would never have made them.
#31 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

For those saying they shouldn't have made the sequels, I believe they always had a trilogy in mind. They were trying to pitch the first movie to warner bros studio and see if they can even make it. The problem is making the rest of the story good. 
The weird thing about the matrix is agent smith has seen this entire process reboot and reformat the matrix over and over. If we let the human win, or the machines win, they can't go thought his reformat, if agent smith is like some kind of virus taking over a pc or something metaphorically. (wow that's deep)
It was necessary for neo to go though this process over and over, I believe is choice was always the same to the architect. Maybe not, maybe he made some other choice but it wouldn't explain how agent smith would of known what was going to happen, though a de ja vu. 
Maybe they had a decent storyline, but had poor decisions. I think it would of been great if the matrix wasn't fully infected as others said and zion joins the fight with neo against agent smith, but not eveyone in zion has plugs at the back of the head. Maybe these were meant to be good movies, but it was terrible executed and didn't deliver. Maybe if they didn't try to make two movies at once and also a few videogames at the same time. I don't know, what ppl are suggesting might not even make a better movie. What if that's the best you can do with the storyline.

#32 Posted by Galiant (2195 posts) -

I wouldn't change a thing.

#33 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Statistically on IMDb, matrix 8.7/10, reloaded 7.1/10, revolutions 6.5/10
rotten tomatoes: matrix: 87%, reloaded 74%, revolutions 36%
Seems like a steady decline and the second movie according to ppl is okay. Could be better but still okay. Maybe they shouldn't try to make reloaded and revolutions into seperate halfs, rather they should of just made them seperate. Don't shoot two movies at once and make a few videogames, rather try to make good individual movies instead.

#34 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

I would change nothing about them

#35 Posted by SSully (4325 posts) -

@Ginormis said:

One of the major issues here as that Neo just becomes a giant powerhouse at the end of the first movie. It's very satisfying to see there, but it doesn't set the two sequels up very well. The viewer doesn't feel any tension throughout the second and third films because they know Neo is a giant badass and will basically succeed no matter what.

That is the whole point though. He is this savior who can take on anything that comes his way, but when it comes to Smith it is like he is as powerful as the first time he jacked into the Matrix. If anything the tension is much more powerful when he is fighting Smith because Smith is essentially unstoppable and Neo must stop him, but sees no way of doing so.

I personally love all three movies. There are plenty of flaws in all of the films, but I still cannot help loving each film for what it is. I may be one of the only people who thinks the Battle for Zion in Revelations is one of the coolest parts of the entire trilogy.

#36 Posted by kashif1 (1428 posts) -

keep most of the second movie minus the zion scenes and at the end of the second movie have them discover that the "Real World" is just another layer of the matrix, then end the series with that.

#37 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

I like them as is

#38 Edited by CornBREDX (5997 posts) -

The sequels were ok, but they would have been better with less focus on the real world (Zion) and more focus on the inside of the Matrix. The second was ok, but the third was really boring (although I liked the end but it was kind of silly).

Some of the fights are goofy, too, so less focus on goofy CGI would have helped. That's more me though as I hate over compensation with CGI in film. CGI, in my opinion, should be downplayed and used only when necessary. The fight on the truck for instance is a pretty cool fight, the fight against agent smith where Neo runs on them in a circle with a steel pipe is really goofy and I have always thought there was way to much CGI in that particular fight, and not in a good way. Looks like a looney tunes fight haha

I still like the Matrix, don't get me wrong, but I think the story got away from the Wachowski's- they didn't seem to know what to do with it, and they tried to push innovation often to hard and it sometimes did not work at all. Just my opinion though.

#39 Posted by Mike76x (558 posts) -

Alex Winter would've showed up in a phone booth...

...and together they would have saved the world, and it would have been excellent.
#40 Posted by OneKillWonder_ (1832 posts) -

I wouldn't change a single thing about Reloaded as there's not really anything wrong with it. The story may not be as interesting as the original, but it's still good. However, the film really shines with its action scenes, which there are a lot of. Reloaded, from a pure entertainment standpoint, is one of the best action films of all time, and I can't really fault it for that.

Revolutions I still like, but I feel the pacing was really off for much of the film, and, like others have said, not enough Matrix scenes to satisfy. That said, I always thought the war scene was really impressive, as was the final fight, and I kind of like the way the movie wraps up, but it is generally the weakest in the series.

If the rumored sequels are actually made, then I hope the magic of the first one can be recaptured. I think the Matrix universe is interesting enough to warrant further exploration.

#41 Posted by Bruce (5264 posts) -
I wouldn't have made them; they ruined the magic, if you can call it that, of the first movie.
#42 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11395 posts) -

Less talking, more shooting. 

#43 Edited by GunstarRed (5459 posts) -

Theyre fine, I think the third had way too much of a focus on people we don't really know. who cares about the boy ferrying about ammo or all about that dude from lost's wife.  I think  the Merovingian is an awesome character but kinda wasted in the third. I watched Reloaded recently and  it definately has one of the best action sequences in the series in the bike/car chase. A clearer ending, maybe, possibly? I think making Smith this mega-uber-super villain was  kinda weird, it was like he was created just to give Neo an equal to punch in the face at the end. They should have probably had a more creative finale than that considering the amount shown elsewhere. 
Neither come close to the brilliance of the first.
#44 Posted by Pyrgz (256 posts) -

i would have made them not happen

#45 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

I'm thinking the bar was set way too high for the first movie, to me it was a total masterpiece. But they always planned to make a sequel, I have the making of matrix dvd and that's what they said, they wanted to make a trilogy. 
Maybe the first movie was good because whenever you introduce new stuff to an audience, it's better. Sort of like x-men first class or something like that. The structure of most first movies in a trilogy works. Usually the sequel isn't as good because you aren't introducing new stuff to an audience, rather you are building off the first movie, trying to make things bigger and have a bigger budget. Now the movie looks overly blue screened.

#46 Posted by RaceKickfist (206 posts) -

when i first glanced the topic title i thought it said "matrix squirrels." then I realized that my error is actually my answer to the question. then I worked out this reasoning- if the sequels advertised kung-fu squirrels (like 'g-force' or 'alvin and the chipmunks' or something) i would have never ever gone to see them in the theater. saving me money and time. that's how the sequels would be better- by making them in such a way that i would never go see them.  smell that logic.

#47 Posted by SomeJerk (3389 posts) -

Not existing.

When you watch the first film treating it as the one and only of the franchise, it's really very good, and the ending is enough.

I treat Battlestar Galactica the same. It ended when they landed at a certain planet and figured a certain something out by the end of a certain episode of a certain season. Not a wasteful amounts of episodes of dumb crap later. It makes it so much better.

#48 Posted by ComradeKhan (686 posts) -

They should have just been stoner comedies with Neo and Morpheus gettin real baked and gettin into a bunch of shenanigans while agent Smith always tries to spoil the fun.

#49 Posted by morbidteaparty (8 posts) -

probably changed the way the story was told...the ending just seemed forcec

#50 Posted by crusader8463 (14429 posts) -

There should have been a part where Bill and Ted popped in at some point to fight with Neo.