The Wachowskis Returning to Sci-Fi with Jupiter Ascending - Part 1

[matrix_ghost]

Anyhoo... seems this time the Wachowskis didn't have their next technological break thru ready.
http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captur...with-the-wachowskis-jupiter-ascending-secrets

When they came to Fantastic Fest with "Cloud Atlas," we had a conversation about some of the ideas they were exploring for "Jupiter," and Andy Wachowski told me about something that they were experimenting with that was "the new bullet time." I asked him if that was the gravity boots chase scenes that are in this film.

"I think at that time, we were still… we had one other visual effects card up our sleeve that we couldn't afford. I mean, I guess we could have afforded it, but it would have made the film cost $270 million. But that visual effects concept was also centered around the human body and the motion of it. It was always based on live action moments performed impossibly. When that visual effects solution went away, we were like, 'Huh, okay, we are not going to be able to do that. So what can we do?' The idea remained that we still wanted to… like, we think CG artists are fantastic and there are a handful of them who can do anything.

I'd love to see the concept art and or pre-viz of these scenes

 

[Black Narcissus]

Yeah, it will be a long time before they get that kind of budget. Lawd.

 

[Gargantua]

Lawd.

I don't hate Nolan, just think The Matrix is on another level than his two sci films.

That is all.

The Wachowskis have been a one hit wonder...unfortunately.

I just signed up here, I have been following a long time and I wanted to join in this discussion.

I am both a big Wachowskis and Nolan fan. First of all, The Wachowskis are NOT a 1 hit wonder. Have you ever seen or heard of their first 1996 film, Bound? It has a 92% on RT, more than even the first Matrix and their highest. It was one several top 10's of that year including Eberts and he considers it their best. I consider it their second best, and I've never met somebody who doesn't like it. I urge anyone here wo hasn't to check it out. They are not 1 hit wonders

Also they idea they haven't had a hit since 99 ain't true. Regardless of what some of you might think of it, The Matrix Reloaded was a HUGE success. Is their biggest at the B.O. Over 700 mil and the second highest grossing R movie of all time. It has a 73 on RTfrom both critics and the audience, so even though it was more divisive than th first it was successful critical and financially its their most successful. Since then they have gone down hill and had many flops, but they have made a few cult films. I just wanted to make a point that they are not 1 hit wonders.

But Max, you are not doing anything to help Wachowski fans at this point. you would not be attacking more successful and very well loved filmmakers to try and build up the Bros. very bad idea

 

[Black Narcissus]

I just signed up here, I have been following a long time and I wanted to join in this discussion.

I am both a big Wachowskis and Nolan fan. First of all, The Wachowskis are NOT a 1 hit wonder. Have you ever seen or heard of their first 1996 film, Bound? It has a 92% on RT, more than even the first Matrix and their highest. It was one several top 10's of that year including Eberts and he considers it their best. I consider it their second best, and I've never met somebody who doesn't like it. I urge anyone here wo hasn't to check it out. They are not 1 hit wonders

Also they idea they haven't had a hit since 99 ain't true. Regardless of what some of you might think of it, The Matrix Reloaded was a HUGE success. Is their biggest at the B.O. Over 700 mil and the second highest grossing R movie of all time. It has a 73 on RTfrom both critics and the audience, so even though it was more divisive than th first it was successful critical and financially its their most successful. Since then they have gone down hill and had many flops, but they have made a few cult films. I just wanted to make a point that they are not 1 hit wonders.

But Max, you are not doing anything to help Wachowski fans at this point. you would not be attacking more successful and very well loved filmmakers to try and build up the Bros. very bad idea

I've seen Bound and it did nothing for me.

I'm talking quality over quantity. Matrix sequels made a lot of money no doubt.

They are a 1 hit wonder TO ME. I will still pay to see their films. I have done so all these years, I'm probably still looking for the Bros who made The Matrix and showed so much talent. This is merely out of nostalgia.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Yeah, it will be a long time before they get that kind of budget. Lawd.

Well to be honest they do seem to be the type of people who are somewhat budget conscious.
When they were making the matrix revolutions there was intially going to be a pretty badass bullet time CG sequence with neo flying thru the matrix city . To even pre viz it at the stage would've resulted in a budget increase of a couple of million and if they would gone thru with the animation , it would've just cost tens of million so they dropped the scene.
Those who have the matrix dvd's can see some intial work on this sequence.

I guess it is a case of something actually serving the story vs something just being there just because it looks cool.
With the former at least i do think there is definately a need to go forward in order to execute that properly.
If you look at movies like LOTR where you have CG characters like Gollum or Avatar with the Na'Vi . OF course there is a risk because if you fail you're entire movie fails.
From what i can see it does seem like a sequence that looked good but probably would not have served the story

 

[Gargantua]

I've seen Bound and it did nothing for me.

I'm talking quality over quantity. Matrix sequels made a lot of money no doubt.

They are a 1 hit wonder TO ME. I will still pay to see their films. I have done so all these years, I'm probably still looking for the Bros who made The Matrix and showed so much talent. This is merely out of nostalgia.

If they are to you, than fair enough, can't say anything about that. But I just wanted to point out that they really aren't and many people haven't seen or even heard of Bound. I don't hear much talk about it on the Internet but its very critically acclaimed. And I personally love Reloaded and think its one of the most overheated sequels ever. That's just my opinion. Revolutions is another story...

 

[bapi]

Do you know what's more fun than #JupiterAscending? Eating your own ****ing head! Like seriously... that movie is from the Last Airbender / Battlefield Earth group of ******, ****** movies.

2/10

 

[bapi]

Eddie Redmayne is the worst movie villain ever.

 

[bapi]

Jupiter Ascending < The Golden Compass
Jupiter Ascending < John Carter
Jupiter Ascending < Transcendence

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm seeing it on Saturday. Let's just say I hope I don't hate it as much as you bapi.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Bound only made about half of its $6 million budget back, so I don't think it can be classified as a "hit." And I say that as someone who loves the movie. Gargantua, you even said yourself that most people haven't heard of it.

The Matrix Reloaded did do very well financially, although like many sequels, it's anyone's guess whether it made the money it did because people liked the previous film. If you go by that logic, then you could determine that the film was not as popular as its box office suggested, given that The Matrix Revolutions made about half as much. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, as you could make the argument that Revolutions didn't perform well because it was a bad film. Personally, I feel like both movies kind of fail in different ways, and it was a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Anyway, the way I see it, the Wachowskis have on a downward slope since the first Matrix. I haven't care for anything they've put out since, even when I was really trying to like it (Matrix sequels and Cloud Atlas). I realize that my opinions don't necessarily reflect the general audience, however, there has to be a reason why their box office numbers have been abysmal since the Matrix films.

 

[Gargantua]

Im going to see it. I'm not that excited for it, not as I have been with some of their other projects, but I hope for the best. The Wachowskis have the ability to create very rich and detailed worlds for people who really want to go all in and explore. I'm not sure if they've done that again with this, but I'll find out. I wonder if this will end up another cult film for them like Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas? So far the only one that everyone really agrees wasn't very good is Revolutions. The other 2 may have been disliked by the majority but as time goes on they get more support. So this could go either the way of Revolutions or the was or SR and CA. Time will tell

 

[BatLobster]

I didn't.

Actually, the whole of Inception is the king of all giant exposition dumps

But I enjoyed the hell out of Inception as I enjoyed the hell out of the Architect's speech in The Matrix Reloaded.

For me, the Architect's speech is the most mind-****ingly awesome scene in recent memory.

That's my point. I think the "exposition!" complaint is becoming all too common these days, as if suddenly every single film viewer has taken screenwriting courses and is an authority on the matter. It all started after Inception really.

Inception essentially plays like a heist film. As Nolan says, his approach was that the exposition, the planning is all a part of the entertainment in a heist film. That's what Nolan does, appeals to genre conventions while putting them in a new context. You can like it or not, but it's a false accusation to say Nolan didn't know what he was doing there. He knew he was leaning on a lot of exposition but he felt he could justify it.

You may have thought I was bashing The Architecht's speech, but I wasn't. It was absolutely big giant exposition dump, but it was an intentional assault of verbiage designed to turn the first movie on its head and blow our minds. Not everyone agrees, but I actually love that scene. I'm about as big a fan of the Matrix sequels as you'll find, so don't take me the wrong way here. I have been passionately outspoken in my love for The Matrix Revolutions in particular.

My point is, I think people too often try to use the "rules" of filmmaking as a way to say "gotcha!" to talented filmmakers that are looking new ways to exploit the medium. Rules are meant to be bent, sometimes broken. Whether or not this is done successfully is up for the viewer to decide, but I think we ought to first examine the 'why' of it (as good ol' Merv might) before we condemn them for not playing by the rules. Especially when it comes to filmmakers as talented as Christopher Nolan or the Wachowski siblings.

This isn't all directed at you per se, but it's a pet peeve of mine, so forgive the rant.

 

[Gargantua]

Bound only made about half of its $6 million budget back, so I don't think it can be classified as a "hit." And I say that as someone who loves the movie. Gargantua, you even said yourself that most people haven't heard of it.

The Matrix Reloaded did do very well financially, although like many sequels, it's anyone's guess whether it made the money it did because people liked the previous film. If you go by that logic, then you could determine that the film was not as popular as its box office suggested, given that The Matrix Revolutions made about half as much. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, as you could make the argument that Revolutions didn't perform well because it was a bad film. Personally, I feel like both movies kind of fail in different ways, and it was a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Anyway, the way I see it, the Wachowskis have on a downward slope since the first Matrix. I haven't care for anything they've put out since, even when I was really trying to like it (Matrix sequels and Cloud Atlas). I realize that my opinions don't necessarily reflect the general audience, however, there has to be a reason why their box office numbers have been abysmal since the Matrix films.

You're right that Bound wasn't a hit financially but critically it definitely was (highest rated on RT, doesnt make it their best but still) and people who have seen it it's usually considered their second best after the first Matrix. And Reloaded has a lot of fans even if you don't hear them very much. It's RT scores are comparable to Interstellar, 73 for critics and the audience. That's the majority and people usually think its the second best of the 3. Basically it was their last hit both critically and finacially. Revolutions made very little money and wasn't received well by fans or critics and it'a their only film that hasn't really got any supporters. Even people who dont hate it will acknowledge it was very flawed generally.

Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas are very divisive, many people hate them but they have many supporters and defenders. I liked Cloud Atlas, Speed Racer was ok imo. Jupiter Ascending could become like that, but I won't assume it will. There is also V for Vendetta, I know they didn't direct it but they had a lot of involvement. They wrote and produced it and I think they were the major creative force behind it. Still, calling it theirs is kinda cheating.

I think they should go back to making something like Bound again. Something smaller, they haven't done it since and I don't know why they haven't considered it making a smaller scale film again.

 

[Greens]

The Matrix Reloaded has one of the best car chases ever. Just saying.

 

[Gargantua]

The Matrix Reloaded has one of the best car chases ever. Just saying.

Quite possibly the best ever. It's just so much fun. And the Chateau fight is pretty kick ass as well.

 

[BatLobster]

Reloaded is a lot of fun. I think the thing with Revolutions is that it just suffers from what a lot of "Pt. 2" movies suffer from when a concluding chapter is split up, in that you have a movie that's essentially an elongated climax that's heavy on action but light on story. So to me I always saw the issue with The Matrix sequels being that they did it all at once, because Revolutions is essentially just tying up the loose ends of Reloaded (which I think had enough story to get by). I actually really do think it was a good ending that wrapped up the themes of the trilogy in a pretty satisfactory way to me. I have no problems at all with the fates of the characters (which seemed to be a big problem for a lot of people), and I thought it was a gutsy and very emotional ending honestly. I wouldn't want the ending changed even if the movie was different. But Reloaded and Revolutions were one big movie, and I'll always wonder what might've been if they approached each sequel as a standalone film like the first one.

That said, it's still one of my favorite trilogies.

 

[MadVillainy]

i dont hate Reloaded or Revolution and would gladly watch them over and over again. They dont hold a candle to the first but their still decent to me

 

[Gargantua]

Reloaded is a lot of fun. I think the thing with Revolutions is that it just suffers from what a lot of "Pt. 2" movies suffer from when a concluding chapter is split up, in that you have a movie that's essentially an elongated climax that's heavy on action but light on story. So to me I always saw the issue with The Matrix sequels being that they did it all at once, because Revolutions is essentially just tying up the loose ends of Reloaded (which I think had enough story to get by). I actually really do think it was a good ending that wrapped up the themes of the trilogy in a pretty satisfactory way to me. I have no problems at all with the fates of the characters (which seemed to be a big problem for a lot of people), and I thought it was a gutsy and very emotional ending honestly. I wouldn't want the ending changed even if the movie was different. But Reloaded and Revolutions were one big movie, and I'll always wonder what might've been if they approached each sequel as a standalone film like the first one.

That said, it's still one of my favorite trilogies.

A big problem with Revolutions is that they spent to much time on secondary characters that weren't well enough developed to care about. The Wachwoskis didn't know ow to handle the more ensemble nature of the sequels as well as the more tight cast in the first that was handled perfectly. They do a pretty good (not perfect) job in Reloaded, but in Revolutions the second act nearly completely ditches the main protagonist for the Zion battle, which is spectacular at times, but who cares about those characters? That was a big problem with it.

I do enjoy Revolutions, and have no problem where the story went at the end I think that's perfect, it's just as a film it had many technical issues that the first or even Reloaded didn't have.

 

[Flint Marko]

So this movie is getting panned critically. I felt it would be poorly received because every TV spot I've seen has looked mind-numbingly stupid, but I didn't think it'd be sitting at a 29 the day before release. Usually the RT meter drops once it's out in theaters, so it's possible it will go even lower.

 

[Apollo]

I have Matrix Reloaded Full Screen Dvd Edition...

 

[BatLobster]

A big problem with Revolutions is that they spent to much time on secondary characters that weren't well enough developed to care about. The Wachwoskis didn't know ow to handle the more ensemble nature of the sequels as well as the more tight cast in the first that was handled perfectly. They do a pretty good (not perfect) job in Reloaded, but in Revolutions the second act nearly completely ditches the main protagonist for the Zion battle, which is spectacular at times, but who cares about those characters? That was a big problem with it.

I do enjoy Revolutions, and have no problem where the story went at the end I think that's perfect, it's just as a film it had many technical issues that the first or even Reloaded didn't have.

Yeah, that's kind of what I mean about the story not really having quite enough meat on its bones. I enjoy the war sequence quite a bit, but I think losing track of Neo/Trinity for 20 minutes was probably a misstep and it probably yanked a lot of people out of the film, understandably so. I enjoyed things like the Morpheus/Locke subplot, but it's possible more could've been done with it. Morpheus being disillusioned was a great direction to go in, unfortunately he isn't given a ton to do other than mope and act as Niobe's side-kick in the film. He does get some of the best lines though.

I think once the war scene ends and the film shifts focus back to Neo/Trinity, it ends strong. But yeah, definitely a valid point about relying too much on the secondary characters and expecting the audience to care.

Btw, welcome Gargantua.

 

[Gargantua]

Yeah, that's kind of what I mean about the story not really having quite enough meat on its bones. I enjoy the war sequence quite a bit, but I think losing track of Neo/Trinity for 20 minutes was probably a misstep and it probably yanked a lot of people out of the film, understandably so. I enjoyed things like the Morpheus/Locke subplot, but it's possible more could've been done with it. Morpheus being disillusioned was a great direction to go in, unfortunately he isn't given a ton to do other than mope and act as Niobe's side-kick in the film. He does get some of the best lines though.

I think once the war scene ends and the film shifts focus back to Neo/Trinity, it ends strong. But yeah, definitely a valid point about relying too much on the secondary characters and expecting the audience to care.

Btw, welcome Gargantua.

Thanks BatLobster!

Yeah I love it all once we get back to Neo. The Machine city is amazing, I love it. One of the most memorable moments in any film for me when Neo is standing in front of the Machine city... then the Machine God All that suff is brilliant IMO.

 

[dude stannis]

Hey Gargantua;

[YT]vD94dVu8lqQ[/YT]

 

[max314]

Nobody had an explosive outrage because nobody thinks that the Wachowskis are as good as Nolan.

Exactly. Double standards.

"You can't bury this guy! What, that guy? **** him."

And if you replace Batman Begins with The Dark Knight Rises I will agree with your mediocre statement. Although I do tremendously dislike Batman Begins third act.

See, I thought The Dark Knight was a MASSIVE step up from Batman Begins in virtually every department.

Both films have gaping plot holes (a recurring issue with Nolan films), but The Dark Knight doesn't stop to let you realise its ridiculousness on that vertiginous first viewing.

I agree about Batman Begins' third act. To me, the whole second half of Batman Begins is sub-standard.

The best bit of Batman Begins is also its biggest contribution to the Batman mythology: namely, his training with The League of Shadows.

EDIT:
Just realised you were talking about The Dark Knight Rises!

It's a flawed film, but I think it's more entertaining and emotionally satisfying than Batman Begins.

That's my point. I think the "exposition!" complaint is becoming all too common these days, as if suddenly every single film viewer has taken screenwriting courses and is an authority on the matter.

**** those people.

Hitchcock's movies were rife with exposition. Dial M for Murder was almost nothing but.

What matters is how you handle the exposition.

You're right about the wannabe screenwriters. They flick through McKee and think they're experts.

Like I said: **** those people.

...The Architecht's speech...was an intentional assault of verbiage designed to turn the first movie on its head and blow our minds.

It's so funny how people watch that scene and go, "The Wachowskis are so pretentious!"

What they don't realise is that it's the Architect who is pretentious and pompous and a bona fide *******. My theory is that the Wachowskis are taking the piss out of pseudo-philosophers like Baudrillard who hide their inadequacies behind sophistry and logic loops.

And yes, that is the most mind-blowing ending to a second installment since Darth Vader told Luke Skywalker who his daddy is.

I have been passionately outspoken in my love for The Matrix Revolutions in particular.

That makes two of us. Let's get some marshmallows and a fire started and sing 'Kumbayah'.

...I think we ought to first examine the 'why' of it (as good ol' Merv might) before we condemn them for not playing by the rules. Especially when it comes to filmmakers as talented as Christopher Nolan or the Wachowski siblings.

Yes, yes, and yes again.

This isn't all directed at you per se, but it's a pet peeve of mine, so forgive the rant.

There is nothing to forgive.

You're cool.

...Revolutions...just suffers from what a lot of "Pt. 2" movies suffer from when a concluding chapter is split up, in that you have a movie that's essentially an elongated climax that's heavy on action but light on story.

[...]

But Reloaded and Revolutions were one big movie, and I'll always wonder what might've been if they approached each sequel as a standalone film like the first one.

Completely agree again.

Reloaded and Revolutions work best in a single sitting (though you may want to take a short pee-pee break between films à la Lawrence of Arabia ).

The Matrix Revolutions is like a Rorschach print that changes every time you watch it. It's honestly one of the most profound films I've ever seen.

With regards to thematic ambition, it trumps even the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

#controversy