MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB: MATRIX REBOOTED: No?

matrix trucks

Be Sociable, Share!

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.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon