Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Matrix Sequel Delayed to 2003 296

Posted by CmdrTaco from the submitted-a-zillion-times dept.
moojin was among the countless slashdot readers who noted that scifi (No I am Sci-Fi dammit) has reported that the 'Matrix Reloaded' will be delayed until the summer 2003. I'm bummed, but I'm willing to wait to see the Brothers W do it right (no way I'm gonna try to spell that name ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matrix Sequel Delayed to 2003 More

Matrix Sequel Delayed to 2003

Comments Filter:
  • oh, sorry, wrong thread ....

  • Shooting parts two and three as one movie? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pgpckt ( 312866 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:41PM (#2111835) Homepage Journal
    That sounds interesting. I wonder if any other movies have ever been shot in this fashion. Doing it this way seems a good way to maximize profit. You don't have to try to get all the actors together again, you don't have to get all the clearences to shot at certain locations again, you don't get unintended delay from actors pursuing aditional projects, etc. The only disadvantage is you could release both films at or near the same time, but you would never do that (to again maximize profit) which has the small potential to irritate Matrix loyalists. Other then that, this seems smart from a production angle. Does anyone know of other films that have tried this?
    • Yes, Lord of the Rings is being shot the same way. All 3 parts are being shot together.

    • The 1973 and 1974 films The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers where shot at the same time. The cast sued because they thought they where only shooting one film.
    • Those movies were both shot at the same time.
    • The two I can think of off the top of my head are Back to the Future parts 2 and 3, and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's rare because although it does save production costs, if the first film bombs, the studio is then holding a worthless sequel.

      -B
    • Does anyone know of other films that have tried this?

      It happens quite a bit, especially with low-grade third, fourth, and fifth sequels.

      Although it's at the other end of the genre, a good example is Back to the Future II and Back to the Future III, which were filmed simultaneously as well.

      Seeing that they had to refilm a handful of scenes from the first movie as well when filming II, they could've done better by filming all three at the same time.

      Much of Superman II was filmed at the same time as Superman (but finished later under a different director),

      Rumors have also circulated that all three LOTR movies are filmed at the same time.

      • Rumors have also circulated that all three LOTR movies are filmed at the same time.

        It's not a rumor - it's a well known fact, at least to anyone who has been following the progress of the filming. All three movies were shot in one long marathon filming in New Zealand. Director Peter Jackson decided to do it all at once because it would be cheaper, and easier to get all the actors involved for one long shoot than for three shorter ones, spread out across 3-5 years.

        Principal photography for all three movies is now complete, but there will be touchup work to be done as editing takes place before the release of each of the following films.

        I'm sure there are loads of good links that make note of the fact that all three were shot at once, but I'm too lazy to do more than point to the FAQ at TORN [theonering.net]

    • I think Back to the Future II and III were shot at the same time.
    • I believe that Robocop 2 [imdb.com] and Robocop 3 [imdb.com] were also filmed back-to-back. Ironically, even though the original [imdb.com] was Classic (the unrated Director's Cut [imdb.com] is even better), the sequels kinda sucked (flying Robocop??).
    • As many people have noted, principal photography (aka "production") for Lord of the Rings was shot in one long stretch for all three films.

      However, the "irritating the loyalists/maximizing profit" (due to releasing the Matrix sequels separately) comment shows ignorance of the creative and logistical necessities of film production; the "post-production" process _typically_ outlasts the "principal photography" period, even on average-size films. On SFX-heavy films, this period is stretched out _even_more_.

      This is why the 3 LOTR films are being released at yearly intervals (more details on http://lordoftherings.net) - the SFX-heavy post-production process (which also includes dialogue re-recording, sound effects, and music scoring and recording, and massive amounts of editing) takes a _really_really_ long time for _each_ film.

      In other words, Matrix fans would be _more_ pissed off by simultaneous release, as they would be waiting for M3 to complete while M2 sat on a shelf.

      Even more foolish would be if the filmmakers tried to complete post-prod. for M2 & M3 simultaneously - if you've ever tried to "finish" two major projects at the same time _and_ do a good job on _either_ of them, you would understand how difficult (and destructive to deadlines) this is.

      In short, while seprate releases maximize profit; in no way is this a "screwing over" of the fans.
  • if they releas it near christmas, wont it have to compete with one of ther LOTR movies? I doubt this is a coincidence.
  • Well, it looks to me like there were just "rumors" that it would be released by Christmas 2002, not announced. It's not a delay, it's just a more accurate estimate on the time it'll be done.

  • Matrix III (Score:3, Funny)

    by glasslemur ( 238045 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:38PM (#2114079)
    Reinstalled after crash...
  • This is disappointing. I know a lot of geeks hated the movie, and labelled it as no plot mainstream crap, but I enjoyed it. Wanted to see what they would possibly do next..

    ..on the other hand, at least Fellowship of the Ring is still coming out at Christmas! ::drools::

  • ya right (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The marketing dept. must have decided it was more strategic to release in the summer 2003. It takes like 8 months to make a movie.

    Delays are almost always for marketing reasons.
  • How hard is it to spell Warner Brothers?
  • Wachowsky isnt that hard to spell :)

  • well, maybe maybe not... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ebbv ( 34786 )

    there is some confusion [aintitcool.com] as to what exactly is going on...
    ...dave

  • Am I the only one... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:40PM (#2118572) Homepage Journal

    Am I the only one who thinks that "Matrix: Reloaded" is worse than "Attack of the Clones"?

    Well, at least it isn't "The Agents Strike Back"

  • People seem to either hate the Matrix, or love it. If you hate it, then obviously the sequel will suck for you.

    I think the sequel should be good though. The main reason is because it won't just be a re-hash of the first one. It is a distinct story, because the circumstances are almost entirely different.

    I really don't understand why so many people hate the Matrix. I mean, I know Keanu can't act, and the plot has holes, but compared to most sci-fi movies it is very solid. ah well, to each his own.

  • Delay Confimed (Score:1, Redundant)

    by beebware ( 149208 )
    SciFi is also reporting that Variety confirmed [scifi.com] that Matrix 2: Matrix Reloaded [beebware.com] [IMDB [imdb.com]] has been delayed.

    More details available via Corona Canada [corona.bc.ca] and KeanuWeb [keanuweb.com] where it states that Matrix 2 [beebware.com] was planned for Christmas 2002 and Matrix 3 [beebware.com] for Summer 2003.

  • For info on Matrix 2 check out this site [corona.bc.ca]

  • My problem (Score:1, Interesting)

    by CzarnyKozak ( 448443 )
    My main problem with the original is the same problem I have with all cyberspace-neuromancer type clones: why in the world would your brain kill your body if you 'thought' you died in some VR-type world? It makes no sense. I mean, honestly, think about it. Most of your body which is devoted to survival is autonomic - heart, respiration, all take serious conscious effort to control, and quite a bit of training. It's extremely unlikely that your mind, thinking that you died, would cut off the *autonomic* response of breathing/heartbeat. That's idiotic. How does your brain know that you honestly died? All those bullets could've passed straight through, and not harmed anything. Consider reality: several people wake up in hospitals thinking that they have died. If your body doesn't die if your brain thinks you died in reality, you wouldn't die from dying in VR! Of course, the better analogy comes from dreams: if you die in a dream, do you die in reality? No... so why in the world does anyone think VR is any different? Granted, the Matrix wouldn't exactly have any 'punch' if they didn't really die, but that's another example of Hollywood sacrificing common sense for theatrical effect. It'd be really nice to see someone who's very very smart come up with a good, scientifically sound plot that's still a good movie.
    • Your brain can tell your body to shut of vital functions and die. Although we, as citizens of the western world, usualy can't do this many indigenous tribes can. In many cultures (some Native American tribes, native Australians) disgraced members of the tribe will actually go off alone, lay down and will themselves dead.

      Or so I've heard.

      Hell, it's a great plot device.

  • Did they ever film anything? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cnkeller ( 181482 ) <cnkeller@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:48PM (#2121542) Homepage
    Sorry if this was dicussed, but the site was already slashdotted.

    I lived in San Francisco last year and saw Keanu and Lawrence (just to name two) all the damn time in the city. Hanging out at the bars in Northbeach, at dinner South of Market, etc.

    My question is, why were these guys always in the city hanging out? Did they ever get any filming done? I'm kind of saying this tongue in cheek, but it's a valid question. I had always heard the Hollywood myth: actors work such long days, filming is hard work, blah blah. Lawrence didn't look very stressed; chilling out with his ever present sunglasses and a frosty beer...

    • What are they doing filming in SanFran? Wasn't the first one done in Sydney, Australia?
    • Of course Larry isn't stressed. After filming Apocalypse Now, any other shoot must be a cakewalk.

    • I lived in San Francisco last year and saw Keanu and Lawrence (just to name two) all the damn time in the city.

      My question is, why were these guys always in the city hanging out? Did they ever get any filming done?

      I worked as an extra during some of the filming of the sequels. A lot of of the stuff they were filming around here didn't involve Keanu's character, so he was "around" but not actively involved in most of it.

      As for the other actors, sometimes you need them, other times a stand-in or stunt double is sufficent. During some of the stunt-heavy sequences the real Carrie-Anne Moss was only on our set once or twice a week at most; ditto for The Fish. But their stunt doubles were around constantly. It depends on what you're filming.

      For ongoing info on the sequels, try www.thematrixonline.com [thematrixonline.com] .

    • My question is, why were these guys always in the city hanging out? Did they ever get any filming done? I'm kind of saying this tongue in cheek, but it's a valid question. I had always heard the Hollywood myth: actors work such long days, filming is hard work, blah blah. Lawrence didn't look very stressed; chilling out with his ever present sunglasses and a frosty beer...

      A film actor's life is much like that of a Navy crewman during wartime -- months of boredom, punctuated by hours of panic. A movie shoot is like any other complex jury-rigged system; it takes a while to set up and get running, and is prone to unexpected failures and delays. During such times, low-ranking actors hang around the set drinking beer; high-ranking actors drive somewhere nice to drink beer, but leave their cell phone ringers on.

      And yes, once filming actually gets under way, it can be exhausting and very demanding work. I'm not sure it's worth $10 million a film, but it's not a cake walk, either.

  • other comments (Score:3, Informative)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:38PM (#2123603)
    IGN [ign.com] has a similar news report which includes comments regarding the use of katana in the film.
  • I don't know why they want to make a sequel to the movie. No one has ever made a sequel better that the orginial.
  • I don't see how they are going to do a sequel. At the end of the first movie, the "resistance" won, and Neo transcended the Matrix. So what's the deal, are they going to bring back the machines/Matrix, and have it turn out that they didn't beat the machines after all?
    • Anybody remember the dumb V TV movies that got turned into a series. Us humans won, engineering a superbacteria. Yeah!!! Then once the TV series came out, het, guess what, it can't survive winters dammit. Most contrived plot I've seen. Well, next to Batman having his Bat-Thermal underwear on whenver he went against Mr. Freeze. He had on tights, how did he hide thermals?

    • Re:plot of sequel (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SuperGrut ( 452229 )
      At the end of the movie all of the people (with some notable exceptions) are still in pods. We never get to see the free city. There is still a lot to do. Being in control of the matrix does nothing about freeing mankind.
    • How did you SEE the movie and not get this?

      Neo represents a hacker Messiah. He was conceived (not in the way we enjoy) to break humanity from the bondage that is the Matrix -- a metaphor for our drab daily lives where everyone has a "normal" job and dresses in dull-colored business suits. The Matrix also represents the idea that the machines we create will eventually overpower us [unabombertrial.com], something I think science fiction has allowed us to contemplate [orgwis.gmd.de] long enough where it will be handled responsibly.

      Anyway, enough history and my take on technology and ethics.

      NEO may have gotten away from the agents, and empowered himself by freeing his mind (from the constraints of society -- the Matrix), but now he and the others have to help all the other people in the world realize who and what they are and how they, too, can be freed from bondage. Neo sees the fake world in its code form, and he knows that that's all it is -- code which he can manipulate to his will (kinda cool how Open Source comes to mind in that context). Now he must show the people of the world what he knows, and how to empower themselves.

      I don't know why I'm telling you this... it's obvious you saw only the fighting in the movie as having meaning, and paid little attention to the dialogue. Otherwise, you would have caught things like these quotes [uchicago.edu]. If you can't Identify with what Morpheus says, you're probably not living your life to the fullest.
      • No need to be insulting. I understood the movie just fine, it wasn't Dostoeyevsky. But it seems to me that now that Neo has transcended the Matrix and can reshape the world, pretty much all the work has been done. Yes, the rest of humanity is still in bondage and must be freed, and human society will have to be rebuilt, etc., and those tasks could take up several movies and still never get done. But I'm assuming that the sequel(s) will retain the form of the original--science fiction with special effects, martial arts action etc. I just don't see how rebuilding human society is going to involve kung fu--if there are any Agents left over to put up a fight, Neo won't need martial arts; he can just reshape the Matrix to his will.

        Obviously there is *SOME* way out of this, otherwise they wouldn't have a script. I'm just curious what it is.

    • Re:plot of sequel (Score:5, Funny)

      by jafuser ( 112236 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @01:24PM (#2129478)
      I don't see how they are going to do a sequel. At the end of the first movie, the "resistance" won, and Neo transcended the Matrix

      two words: Meta-Matrix

      This could provide for an infinite number of sequels :)

  • The reason (Score:3, Funny)

    by Fryth ( 468689 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @01:00PM (#2126338)
    They're probably releasing it in a couple years to avoid the present curse of movies turning out to suck.

  • There is no sequel. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Giant Hairy Spider ( 467310 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:42PM (#2127932)
    Do not try to wait for the sequel. That's impossible. Instead, realize the truth, that there is no sequel, there will never be a sequel, and it is you yourself you are waiting for.
  • I will not see a movie with the Aliyah chick in it. After watching my friends kids watching Disney channel with Aliyah singing to all the 13 year olds i can't imagine i can see her playing a role of inteligence, strength, intuition and power.

    Bring back the survivors and maybe i'll bother.

  • Much in the same way that some artists say that they know they've really "made it" when Weird Al [weirdal.com] parodies one of their songs, maybe, in the same way, musicians/actors/athletes know they've made it once they make one of those "I am Sci-Fi" bits.

    But, I can't be the only one that would love to see an actual Sci-Fi commercial with CmdrTaco in a CopyLeft [copyleft.net] shirt belting "No I am Sci-Fi dammit!" ;)
  • (no way I'm gonna try to spell that name ;)

    Since you haven't learned to spell simple words like "than," it comes as no surprise that "Wachowski" would give you fits.

    Of course, you could always look them up in imdb [imdb.com], but that would require intelligence [geekizoid.com].

  • Not only a sequel... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:53PM (#2129169) Homepage
    Well people complain that sequels are worse. And some point to "good" ones. (Like star wars not counting EP1).

    Yes it's true that most of the sequels, written after the success of first movie, are bad.

    But if the story was written, and shot, in more than one piece, it changes.

    For example Titanic II would be bad, because they have to "make up" things. But, "the emprire strikes back" was good, because the story included that from the beginning.

    (Sorry for my bad english)

    • And thats why the "sequels" to the Lord of the rings are going to rock, because they arent actually sequels, they are seperate installments to one story.

    • But, "the emprire strikes back" was good, because the story included that from the beginning.

      Lucas claims he had all the movies planned, but I think he was winging it on Return of the Jedi. Let's face it, there was a romantic undercurrent between Luke and Leia in Episodes IV & V. Why would Lucas have done that if he knew all along that Luke and Leia were siblings? And in the original ROTJ script, Lando kicks the bucket. Things were definitely in flux.

    • For example Titanic II would be bad, because they have to "make up" things.

      C'mon, I think leo screaming "I'm the King of the Dead!" would be kindof cute, don't you think?

    • Re:Not only a sequel... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Mike Schiraldi ( 18296 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @02:02PM (#2145650) Homepage Journal
      Uh, i don't think that's the only reason Titanic II would suck...

      INT PARLOR

      A rich MAN and his WIFE are sitting and talking.

      WIFE

      Hubert, would you fancy taking a cruise on the Titanic later this season?

      MAN

      No, you stupid bitch, it's been sunk for over a year!

  • The brothers (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kozz ( 7764 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:41PM (#2140066)
    are Larry and Andy Wachowski. That's not so hard to spell. ;)
    • That's not so hard to spell. ;)

      Dude, there's a reason why CmdrTaco majored in CS and not English. :-)
      • Or maybe it's that he's a lazy motherfucker who can't be bothered to type in "matrix" at imdb.com and copy and paste "Wachowski" into his post...
    • You're not familiar with Taco's attempts to spell, are you?

  • "PR" Translator (Score:4, Funny)

    by kleenx ( 457564 ) <slashdot@nOSpAm.exploremike.com> on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:42PM (#2140068)
    Phrase: Silver assured that the extra time added to the production schedules is simply meant to benefit the quality of both films.

    Definition: 1) Normally used to cover ones "butt" in hopes that releasing early of said time makes people feel better 2) We really messed something up, and need more time. Possibly because the plot was lacking, and we dont want another mistake like the new Star Wars (timining coincidence... i think not!) 3) There's been a lack of press, lets bring some hype back up ;)

    That seems about right I think!
    • funny observations, and usually true, but in this case I believe you're going to discover (come 2003/04) you were dead wrong in betting against the films when both completely blow your mind right out of your head.

      the W brothers envisioned a triology from the get-go. and they consider the first film in the trilogy the weak-but-necessary preamble to establish the very complex structural narrative which will be leveraged by the second two films.

      if they consider "The Matrix" to be the weakest link in their series (one of the greatest sci-fi films EVER), i'm inclined to trust that they'll deliver the goods. if it takes an extra year, it isn't because they're sitting around trying to figure out a plot. It is because they know they only have one chance to do this correctly, that their cinematic legacy is at stake. Films that are perfect, uncompromised artistic realizations of a unique vision are rare enough. Rarer still are those that can be commercially successful.

      Give them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to preemptively gloat about an inevitable cinematic disappointment that lacks in plot and worthiness, I'd recommend you consider the upcoming sure-to-be-a-groaner, "Attack of the Clones". Don't bet against Lucas when it comes to disappointing fans and bungling a legacy- or you WILL be disappointed. He's done it before- TWICE (Jedi & Menace) and he'll do it again. Sure as eggs is eggs.

      • The effects were cool and all, but I thought that the story line was incredibly weak, and the characters annoying. Anytime I'm watching a movie and I'm happy that the "good guys" die because they irritate me, I'm disappointed.

        Tomb Raider was similar. Cool effects, and it would have been a good movie if it had, say, a script.

        I'm not really looking foward to this one.

        BTW: I think that SW:Ep1 gets a bad rap for no reason. After watching it a second and third time, I felt like it was one of the best movies in the trilogy. I felt that there were subtle references to plots and the universe as a whole that was ignored in the trilogy.

        The rips on Jar-Jar are kinda rediculous. He isn't ANY worse than C-3PO. We just like 'threepio because we grew up with him. My sig. other just watched A New Hope for the first time last weekend. She spoke to be afterwards and was like, "Am I the only one that finds C-3PO really annoying?"

        Jar-Jar was no worse than C-3PO, we just all thought C-3PO was cool because he was a robot of sorts, and we were little kids.

        To suggest that Menace was a bad film and Matrix was one of the greatest really shows an interesting point of view.

  • one long movie split in two? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @12:39PM (#2141228)
    they said that they are filming this as one long movie, not two... Interesting.

    I hope to see more story and less visual crap. Every movie out these days has "Matrix-like" moves and it is just getting old. I would really hope that the next one is just as groundbreaking as the first.
    • Reminds me of Back to the Future II and III. IIRC, they were making one movie (working title: "Paradox"), and realized they had too much material, so they made two.

      There are certainly advantages:
      budget: there are some things you only have to do once, like sets and costumes.
      continuity: no one's going to look incongruously old in the third one.
      writing: you can tell one good story instead of trying to tell two good stories.
      box office: you have two sequels to a well loved movie. On only that basis, they should do fine.

      You're also right about being "Matrix-like". I hope they focus more on making a good "brothers W" film than being like the original.

      However, for continuity, many things will have to be the same: we'll likely need bullet-time, wire fight scenes, and most of the same characters. (Doesn't mean the characters can't grow/change.)

  • Duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nater ( 15229 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @01:22PM (#2156718) Homepage
    the Brothers W do it right (no way I'm gonna try to spell that name ;)

    It's W-A-R-N-E-R.

    • Re:Duh (Score:2, Informative)

      by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 )
      Uhm. Wachowski? They're from the Chicago suburbs. If you know Chicago, the street names are from downtown. Purposely jumbled, with some impossible combinations such as La Salle and Wabash (which run parallel) or somthing like that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close