Why did the matrix 2, and 3 suck so bad?

The Matrix Trilogy is far more complex than you know, probably more than anyone knows except for the Wachoski's. I am not talking about the obvious religious connections like Neo to Jesus, the Nebuchadnezzar, Trinity, etc. There are many more layers than alot of people know and what many people don't want to know. I think that alot of people didn't like 2 and 3 was because it wasn't as simple as 1. Humans=Good, Machines=Bad. As the story progressess in 2 and 3 you see that machines are not so much fault as we were led on to believe. They were probably more innocent then humans. The second and third films were alot more complicated than the first. At first I didn't like them but as I watched them more and more I grew to like how the story progressed and how all the philosophy fit into the story and how the films fit in to the stories in many religions.(not just christianity)I don't claim to be a philosopher or even that smart really but the only really ignorant people are the ones who don't want to learn and who will look at something once and make judgements about it. That is just my opinion.

I was a big fan of the first Matrix. The second one I liked because it was so epic. The fight scenes in M2 were godlike on screen, like inside the Marivingin's(however you spell his name)strong hold. The burly brawl was fun although I will admit the animation was a bit over the top. Fruits hit the nail on the head with the freeway chase though. That was one of the coolest(and most brutal)car chases I've ever seen. It was like Lethal Weapon on acid. One thing that I kept noticing though is how uneven alot of the non action scenes were. The tone was confusing at times, but the action and visual sort of forced me to shake it off. When the third one came out I realized that the movie was looking more like a sappy war movie. The dialoge was almost non existent. Morpious zen drenched speeches were now petty and useless, Neo and Trinity's love seemed awkard and forced. Only Smith kept me in the theater with a character that he seemed to have mastered with fun. Honestly I think it was because the game Enter the Matrix had alot of elements that should have been incorporated into the movie. It would have given us a break from all the sappy melodratic scenes in Zion. I realized that Ghost and Niobe were the main focus in the game but it had alot of action scenes that would have made up for M3's lack of plugged in matrix screen time. They could have given some scenes in the game to Neo or the others. What saved the second film from everbody hating it was the fact most of it took place in the Matrix! In m3 the battle for Zion should have been more of a background piece to more battles within the Matrix, that sureal land every fan has been dreaming about since 1999. I did think the ending was smart, but didn't pack the punch it should have with all the shallow characters within the walls of Zion. The machines can have Zion. I'll take the Matrix and a steady job within it. I wonder if Neo's old office is hiring.

Someone in here said that the sequels should have never been made and I agree. I do like m2 but honestly I think the first one was great because it left it open for the imagination. Sure the sequels were more in depth but some mysterys are better left alone. The first one was the best I think because it had such a linear storyline. Neo was to become the one. True it has some christian elements like god coming down in human form to fight for us, but the first film is more about awakening, like Neo finally becomes the one is almost hauntingly similar to Budda trancending the mind. Neo seeing in code is a clever example of what happened to Budda at the moment of his enlightenment, or the Christian take would be Jesus after being baptised and then realizing he was God incarnate. Then you throw in the whole fish out of water element you got yourself a tight story. The first one saved us from the worn out end of the world battles that to many movies have pumped out since god knows when. That's what made Terminator effective too. Why waste money on giant battle scene when you can just suggest it and the audience own imagination will do the rest. It safe and smart. I thought Neo becoming the One was enough to stop the war(system failure? what's with the reloaded crap?). I did like the second one but still feel the reason why we all liked the first was because in our minds the movie never ended and it never should of. But it did end and we found out that Zion looked alot liked Star Trek filmed in the local sewer systems. Like I said, some enigmas are better left untapped. Star Trek sucks.

ok the matrix 2 and 3 didnt suck they were just different, they take us deepr into that world, the onl beef i had with it was there was less acctuall human fighting, i eman nothing can beat the fight between neo and agent smith in the subway station but the fights in 2 and 3 as cool as they look, theyre too over drawn especially the burly brawl in 3 and the smiths vs neo barrage, but the movies are well written you have to pay atention to everything in them in number 1 you only had to listen to the origins, so theyre not bad, theyre just following greatness like godfather part 3 followed godfather part 2, now number 3 wasnt bad it just followed a piece of perfection, same with 2 and 3 in the matrix set

Originally posted by RZA
Because of Hollywood's greed. They should've just left it to one movie but they got greedy and dragged it out to three movies. They could've easily made it into one long kick ass movie, I definitely didn't see the need for part 2 at all, it was clearly just something done for the sole purpose of having something in between the first and the third film...crap...pure unadulterated crap!

You know to this day it's amazing to me how some people still haven't figured out what the Matrix is really all about. The clues and hints and the overall symbolism used throughout all 3 movies is so obvious. If you can figure out the symbolism used in this movie and what it relates to then you should be able to figure out whether Neo really died or not.

Hints: Neo is referred to as the 'one'. One is an anagram of Neo. Neo's real name Thomas Anderson translates to 'Son of man'. Neo is touted as the messiah or the one who will bring salvation and freedom, the chosen one. Morpheus refers to the prophecy coming true many times throughout this movie, he himself is also on a mission to 'set his people free'.

Other hints: Trinity, Nebuchadnezza, Zion, Logos, father figure, theme of betrayal, redemption, two worlds-one visible and one not...etc..etc.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me and most people but some people still have yet to figure it out, believe it or not. 🤨

I think the first had the best story, and i agree about the kick @$$ highway scene... and the smith clone fight i suppose was ok, but it was hard to believe which made it cheesy. I also agree about the whole symbolism thing. The second two weren't as good as the first and it would be awesome if the brothers finished it off with a kick@$$ fourth movie.

Don't understand why people keep up this facade of Revolutions being anything but a disaster.

They could have taken a million great, philosophical, intelligent paths after the first one AND after Reloaded. They just decided to cop out and give us the giant battle, CGI fest that they think we wanted because all the dullards didn't "get" Reloaded or the first one. The ending sucked, didn't tell us anything. Well, it told us something stupid. The easiest, simplest way out of the trilogy. As a friend said to me on the train the other day, you can just tell that the Wachowski's were always gonna make the last movie about Neo Vs Smith. Not for any plot reason, just because they were the two main characters.

Revolutions was just horrid. Makes me cringe thinking about it.

-AC

How the hell is Thomas Anderson an anagram for Son of Man, for starters there's no 'f' in Thoman Anderson, and secondly Son of Man has 8 letters whilst Thomas Anderson has 14. You can get 'son' and 'man' from the name but that leaves you with Tho and Ander which don't mean 'of'

3rd one is crap, but 2nd and first was good, i thought the 3rd one was boring.

The first one was great the problem with the two part sequel was it was drawn out and to many boring scenes or to long. If the dross was cut out of this two part sequel down to a single one you would have had a good sequel. 😠

matrix 2 was actually good. But yeah, the third one sucked...

Regression to the mean killed the second and third movies. The Matrix was so good, they had to move towards sucking. There was no hope for them to be as good as the first. I actually like all three quite a bit. I think Reloaded was the worst, and it actually came up a bit with Revolutions.

They relied too heavily on the audience following complex philosophy and theology was their main problem, brain in a vat is a rather easily understood concept compared to the concepts presented in the other two. Also language and symbolism, people are lazy, they don't want to research the material to understand the movie, and unless they possessed a lot of theology and philosophy background people did not get it.

I'm so ****ing tired of people saying they sucked because they don't have minds of their own. Critics have their head's shoved up their ass... take a look at what they thought of the Butterfly Effect, only because it had Ashton Kutcher in it.

The Matrix Reloaded is probably the worst of the trilogy. Oh well. It is full of action and that's all well and good, but it includes quyite a few philosphical elements and the beauty of this film is you have to watch it several times to catch everything. Everything is incredibly detailed... excellent foreshadowing on all parts. Symbolism is rampant and I enjoy that, and I enjoy unravelling the secrets of the Matrix. It's a film built to generate discussion and it does a damn good job of it.

The Matrix Revolutions is no different.

They do not suck.

Originally posted by Stinky_Bottoms
Where did they go wrong?
The first was good the 2nd, and 3rd were horrible...

I don't think the 2nd or 3rd movies suck. I didn't like the fact that ALL the main bad guys NEVER got their due. we were all hoping for humanity to somehow defeat the machines not just postpone the inevitable. people did not win anything. mero did not get his due. architect did not get his due, trainman did not get his due, smith kinda did and neo died. too many questions without answers. why was seriph "wingless"?

this is a matter of opinion, but if i must answer the question, the original is usually better. they start with there best idea, and then they use their second best idea, and it continues like that

The third one was great, I loved the ending ! It seems I'm the only one though...

nEo kinda reminded me of superman with all the flying he did in Matrix 2.

Originally posted by freemind
The Matrix Trilogy is far more complex than you know, probably more than anyone knows except for the Wachoski's. I am not talking about the obvious religious connections like Neo to Jesus, the Nebuchadnezzar, Trinity, etc. There are many more layers than alot of people know and what many people don't want to know. I think that alot of people didn't like 2 and 3 was because it wasn't as simple as 1. Humans=Good, Machines=Bad. As the story progressess in 2 and 3 you see that machines are not so much fault as we were led on to believe. They were probably more innocent then humans. The second and third films were alot more complicated than the first. At first I didn't like them but as I watched them more and more I grew to like how the story progressed and how all the philosophy fit into the story and how the films fit in to the stories in many religions.(not just christianity)I don't claim to be a philosopher or even that smart really but the only really ignorant people are the ones who don't want to learn and who will look at something once and make judgements about it. That is just my opinion.

Originally posted by VanillaCocaCola
I'm so ****ing tired of people saying they sucked because they don't have minds of their own. Critics have their head's shoved up their ass... take a look at what they thought of the Butterfly Effect, [b]only because it had Ashton Kutcher in it.[/b]

^This is why I'm convinced that the Matrix sequels will be considered under-rated in around 5-10 years.I do believe both movies will withstand the test of time,and will be a lot more appreciated later on.

And on the otherhand,crap like the Kill Bill movies will be considered over-rated.*nods* As VanillaCocaCola said,critics don't know what the hell they want.

Anyway,I'll copy and paste one of my old posts regarding the Matrix and it's sequels.

(I'd post a link to my old my post,but apparently I can't post links yet...)

Ever since the sequels came out,I've always said that it's unfair to compare them to the original.

Think about it,just what *was* the biggest revelation in The Matrix? It was the Matrix itself,the fact that people are wired in to this fantasy world was the biggest shocker in the storyline,and they had already given that away in the 1st movie.Not to mention the movie itself was IMMENSELY groundbreaking in terms of direction,concept,action,special effects,etc.

Reloaded and Revolutions in essence was just going to be the expansion of the story that was started in the 1st movie.Expecting the sequels to live up to the original was unreasonable.

And as others have said,the world of the Matrix is just that interesting.Let's take another trilogy like Lord of the Rings for example.All three are good movies,you sit down,you watch them.....and that's pretty much it.But with the Matrix,you sit down,you watch them,and you can go on and on dissecting it's mythology.

Originally posted by Stinky_Bottoms
Where did they go wrong?
The first was good the 2nd, and 3rd were horrible...

NOT ENOUGH BULLET TIME AND BACK BREAKIN MOVES. Sorry. I couldnt control myself.

The first Matrix was my favorite as well. There wasnt enough action in the others. And the sex scence for me totally killed it in the third one!