Did "The Matrix" had to be a trilogy?

Knowing how bad the sequels were, yes the original works fine on its own. But at the time it was impossible not to want more given how good the Matrix was.
 
the first was epic. The sequel and prequel could have been even more epic! I felt as though the story was rushed and let down with the last big time.

Still, great films!
 
I think they went in the wrong direction. The first film is amazing, the second and third are... okay. I'm not saying they don't have their good bits, but they're not on the same level for me. Mistakes were made. What i suspect happened is that after seeing the success of the first one they poured more money into the project, to do impressive CGI. But they ignored one of the main themes that made the first film so great - it was all about the discovery of this small resistance against seemingly an impossibly large force.

By the second the character we had followed to discover this story already knew everything, and the tiny resistance had been turned into a massive war between two sides. Something that had been done before, and that they knew worked. But what made those films work isn't what made the first Matrix work, hence the controversy.
 
Sometimes I think things are better left unexplained and left to the imagination. By explaining everything it lost its allure for me.
 
1st great.
2nd meh
3rd a bit better than 2nd

Shame as was wasted opportunity to make an awesome trilogy. It's hard to understand how they could have made 2 and 3 so bad. It's hard to forgive tbh
 
I used to frequent a Matrix forum and the general consensus was that the first was epic because the Wachowski brothers copied the story from someone elses work. Then after the success they were forced to write the sequels of their own accord and sucked royally hard at it.
 
I think the sequals are treated very harshly. They're ok movies in there own right, just that it doesn't live up to the first. The second was a bit overlong and needed some triming and Trinity's death scene in the third was laughably bad. But apart from that they're decent movies, there's a lot to like in them
 
No, it was a stand alone film, there was no further story to be told which is why the sequels are such terrible piles of cack handed rubbish.

Rather like the Pirates films, there was one story, there was nothing else interesting to go with, hence 3 crappy sequels.
 
mranderson said:
Wouldn't you be happy only with the first episode? Realy didn't like my character in the last episode :D
Click to expand...

No. I would always want to know the ending.

But I'm also not on off these people who think sequals/prequal. Somehow rewrite history and make a great film rubbish.
 
It should have been left at the first, but being such a money maker as it was, anybody with an inkling of a brain would have milked it for more!

What will really blow your mind the next time you watch it though, it's 13 years old. It still looks like a modern film by today's standards!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom