• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Matrix Resurrections what a horrible movie...

Bleib

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
653
Likes
1,115
Location
Sweden
That’s what they do. All these crappy sequels and remakes never get the audience that originally attended. Many of these outright flop. So yes, I blame laziness and creative bankruptcy.
Still not true though.
The superhero genre at cinemas would have died ages ago if people didn't watch them.

And generally reboots, sequels etc are safer bets. Of course there are examples where it completely fails, but there's a reason Apple for instance suddenly will not change the name of the iPhone.


Quite a lot of articles go into this. This is also why Disney bought Star Wars from Lucas, rather than creating an IP of its own.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
6,163
Likes
10,221
Location
Netherlands
Still not true though.
The superhero genre at cinemas would have died ages ago if people didn't watch them.

And generally reboots, sequels etc are safer bets. Of course there are examples where it completely fails, but there's a reason Apple for instance suddenly will not change the name of the iPhone.


Quite a lot of articles go into this. This is also why Disney bought Star Wars from Lucas, rather than creating an IP of its own.
Yeah, that's why Disney lost about 40% of their stock and had to bring back Bob Iger, who ironically was to blame for all the shit that happened the last few years to Disney because he started it all. Many Marvel movies are tracking behind expectations, 2021 was the worst year in Marvel history, and if not for the latest Spiderman, 2022 is not far behind. The new Star Wars movies made not nearly as much as they should have, and the Disney+ series aren't doing too well either (She Hulk anyone?).

I'm not saying making sequels is not profitable. Most of these movies are actually profitable, but also most of them also track well behind expectations.

The article says:
FORBES found that 15 of the top 20 most profitable movies were sequels; spin-offs, like Minions; or reboots, like Jurassic World. Of the five movies that weren't sequels, Avatar, Frozen, The Avengers, The Lion King and Transformers, two are based on materials with an existing fanbase, namely Marvel comics and Transformers toys.
If you make that many sequels, they are bound to populate a list.

there-are-lies-d780eb8163.jpg
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
17,166
Likes
29,887
I don't really have a general issue with super hero movies or sequels. What is wrong with in particular Marvel and Disney Star Wars in recent years is the movies they released to the public are bad movies. Good movies of any genre will do fine. I still cannot get out of my mind how incredible horrible Dr. Strange and the Multiverse were for example. I have to wonder about how bad the movie they didn't release after completing it must have been.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
11,602
Likes
12,801
Location
Central Fl
I don't really have a general issue with super hero movies or sequels. What is wrong with in particular Marvel and Disney Star Wars in recent years is the movies they released to the public are bad movies. Good movies of any genre will do fine. I still cannot get out of my mind how incredible horrible Dr. Strange and the Multiverse were for example. I have to wonder about how bad the movie they didn't release after completing it must have been.
AMEN
 

JaccoW

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2021
Messages
256
Likes
359
Location
The Netherlands
That’s what they do. All these crappy sequels and remakes never get the audience that originally attended. Many of these outright flop. So yes, I blame laziness and creative bankruptcy.
As long as they rake in more money than the original the studios won't care.

  • Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
  • Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
  • The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
  • Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
  • Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
  • Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
  • Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)
There have been a alot of recent remakes that somehow performed much better than expected. Like they managed to crack open some new international markets that haven't seen the original yet.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
6,163
Likes
10,221
Location
Netherlands
As long as they rake in more money than the original the studios won't care.

  • Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
  • Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
  • The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
  • Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
  • Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
  • Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
  • Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)
Inflation is a thing. If you account for that, the differences aren't that big. Also account for the fact that the films are now massively more expensive to make: Aladin was almost four times as expensive as the 1992 version when corrected for inflation 51 vs 185 million $! Same goes for marketing budgets, which are usually about as high as the production cost.
There have been a alot of recent remakes that somehow performed much better than expected. Like they managed to crack open some new international markets that haven't seen the original yet.
Oh, there are always counter-examples: Top Gun Maverick for example. Good sequels are not uncommon. That still doesn't mean it's not easy and creatively bankrupt.
 

JSmith

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
3,492
Likes
8,087
Location
Algol Perseus
  • Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
  • Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
  • The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
  • Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
  • Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
  • Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
  • Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)
An interesting list, however where is it from? I can't help but wonder if there was any adjustment made for inflation.
I still cannot get out of my mind how incredible horrible Dr. Strange and the Multiverse were for example.
Yeah that was rather out of hand... I don't like reverse engineered plot devices for "the sake of it".


JSmith
 

JaccoW

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2021
Messages
256
Likes
359
Location
The Netherlands
An interesting list, however where is it from? I can't help but wonder if there was any adjustment made for inflation.
These are all box office numbers that have not been adjusted for inflation.

But from doing a lot of inflation calculations in the past when digging into equivalent pricing I know that anything early 90's is usually double that in today's money.

So from a studio's perspective it can be a surefire way to generate a guaranteed similar amount of money in profit.
I don't particularly enjoy remakes as a concept either but I certainly understand why they do it.

And as long as people it, why not? Most movies are fun entertainment at best anyway.
 

JaccoW

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2021
Messages
256
Likes
359
Location
The Netherlands
Inflation is a thing. If you account for that, the differences aren't that big
Depends a lot on the year. Even if they are similar when corrected for inflation that's still a lot of money the studios will gladly want. Especially since movies have gotten more expensive to make.
Oh, there are always counter-examples: Top Gun Maverick for example. Good sequels are not uncommon. That still doesn't mean it's not easy and creatively bankrupt.
The whole point of counter examples is to undermine the opposing argument. And since you said remakes and sequels never get the audiences the original did this should at the very least prove that assertion wrong. One counter example is enough to dispel an 'always' or 'never' argument.

You don't like remakes and sequels on principle? Fine.

But don't go complaining about them saying they cannot be as good or popular as the original. If only because the world population has nearly doubled since 1979.

There are bad remakes that completely missed the point. But there are also plenty of examples of sequels that lift up the original.

And if you want an absolutely rollercoaster of an example that does both don't look any further than the Terminator franchise.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
6,163
Likes
10,221
Location
Netherlands
The whole point of counter examples is to undermine the opposing argument. And since you said remakes and sequels never get the audiences the original did this should at the very least prove that assertion wrong. One counter example is enough to dispel an 'always' or 'never' argument.
But I didn’t say all sequels, I said all the crappy ones ;) But fair point, I shouldn’t generalize too much.
You don't like remakes and sequels on principle? Fine.
Not at all, I just like them to be good, refreshing and creative.
But don't go complaining about them saying they cannot be as good or popular as the original. If only because the world population has nearly doubled since 1979.
Doesn’t that undermine your argument? By that logic the percentage of people that watch these about halved. And yes, it’s bad logic ;)
And if you want an absolutely rollercoaster of an example that does both don't look any further than the Terminator franchise.
Well, the trend is clearly downhill on that one.
 
Last edited:

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
6,163
Likes
10,221
Location
Netherlands
Even if they are similar when corrected for inflation that's still a lot of money the studios will gladly want.
Sure, it’s a relatively easy and safe bet. Your earning potential is not as high, but the chance of loosing is also lower. That is exactly my point.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
2,182
Likes
2,426
Yeah.

I finally caught it on a "free with a few ads" streamer.

The images were surreal, the soundtrack didn't do anything for me.

Recognized the few notes borrowed from Vangelis immediately, though.

Now to locate (whenever) the new (well, it was new) Matrix.


I saw 2049 in an IMAX theater. The sound design of that movie awe-inspiring in that setting. At home I'd make sure there was a healthy surround system engaged.

As for the Matrix part IV....also seen in an actual cinema...the first half hour or so ,where it was all meta, was fun. The rest was a slog through endless fan service.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
12,308
Likes
14,605
Location
Riverview FL

krabapple

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
2,182
Likes
2,426
I wrote 'sound design'. Which I'd wager includes stuff not in the soundtrack.

Sorry your youtube skipping excursion didn't match an IMAX experience. ;)
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
11,602
Likes
12,801
Location
Central Fl
Sure, it’s a relatively easy and safe bet. Your earning potential is not as high, but the chance of loosing is also lower. That is exactly my point.
I don't see the re-boot situation much different than origianls. Just a few are really great, the vast majority suck.
Nothing new to learn here. :(
I saw 2049 in an IMAX theater. The sound design of that movie awe-inspiring in that setting. At home I'd make sure there was a healthy surround system engaged.
I saw it here at home on my 5.2.4 rig and a 4K BD.
Video and Atmos Audio quality were both 5 stars, a reference quality UHD BluRay.
I agreed completely with Blu-Ray.com's review.


One could continue noting examples for pages, but the point is that the Final Cut's UHD doesn't just feature a superior picture; it also offers a quantum leap in audio quality, drawing the viewer further into Rick Deckard's darkly mysterious world and making Blade Runner live and breathe even more vibrantly on the screen. For those with the equipment to decode it, the Atmos track alone would justify an upgrade (which makes it doubly unfortunate that Warner has chosen not to provide a remastered standard Blu-ray).
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
11,602
Likes
12,801
Location
Central Fl
Hmm, no, that's review of a UHD rerelease of the original Blade Runner. I was talking about the sequel, 2049.
Ah yes, your right Sorry, I posted the wrong link, I don't even own the 1982 movie. :(
I was thinking about the 2049 UHD-BD, It had gotten that same 5 star rating for both video and Atmos audio.
An unusually high rating for BD.com, as I said a reference quality BD.
Seems Warner Bros has an unusually high respect for the Blade Runner franchise.

 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
6,163
Likes
10,221
Location
Netherlands
I don't see the re-boot situation much different than origianls. Just a few are really great, the vast majority suck.
Well, in the sense that vast majority of sequels are not as good as the original. So on average, you are right, an original is no warranty for a good movie, but if it is, it’s bound to be better than the next years sequel ;)
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
6,163
Likes
10,221
Location
Netherlands
As long as they rake in more money than the original the studios won't care.
  • Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
  • Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
  • The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
  • Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
  • Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
  • Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
  • Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)
So I did the math here and calculated the profits in 2022 money of all of these. For that, I included the budget and used the budget for marketing costs as well (as is quite usual). Doing that will bring your small collection of sequels to about 2 billion dollars of 2022 Profit. The originals however are 1.4 billion dollars ahead. That is roughly a 40% loss of profit for the sequels/remakes.
 
Top Bottom