5 ms·

In return for the 100+ million dollars he got out of it? Li's role would only have been in the sequels anyway, not the one good movie... Seriously though, for

In return for the 100+ million dollars he got out of it? Li's role would only have been in the sequels anyway, not the one good movie... Seriously though, for such a deal if one gets a percentage as royalties perpetually too, then it may be a good arrangement. I think Li's objections could have al been addressed as terms in the deal. Apparently what Li is saying is the terms offered were one-sided and he didn't like them.

dmos62 5y ago
> the one good movie It's the opposite for me, I liked them all, but the first one was just a good old rehash of Socrate's cave allegory. It offered hardly anything new, but was pretentious with various references to Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, which is precisely a critique of the cave allegory. The first one was accessible, simple, fun. The sequels were no less fun, but you had to think. While the first ones referenced Christian mythology a lot, the sequels jumped into Eastern metaphysics.
- jonplackett 5y ago
  I appreciated the second 2 more on 2nd, maybe 3rd watch. They were much cleverer, but worse as entertainment. Also the secret to happiness is low expectations, and I never walked into a movie theatre with higher expectations than I did for Matrix 2.
  - dmos62 5y ago
    Same, on both points.
  - Razengan 5y ago
    Matrix 2 was a cliffhanger leading to a letdown, but I loved the many little worldbuilding elements (like The Merovingian etc.)
    - jonplackett 5y ago
      The thing I struggled with on first watch was knowing how important events are. If this person dies or this person is caught, how good / bad is that? In the first film every character motivation is crystal clear, every character change is obvious and massive and compelling. I still get a tingle at the exact point where Neo wraps the rope around his arm and decides he’s going to catch a helicopter to save Trinity.
atatatat 5y ago
He didn't want his art to be cheapened by having random clowns being shown as if they had those skills.
- elefanten 5y ago
  And yet he got to see that day anyway
forgotmypw17 5y ago
Sequels? ?:-^

dmos62 5y ago

> the one good movie It's the opposite for me, I liked them all, but the first one was just a good old rehash of Socrate's cave allegory. It offered hardly anything new, but was pretentious with various references to Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, which is precisely a critique of the cave allegory. The first one was accessible, simple, fun. The sequels were no less fun, but you had to think. While the first ones referenced Christian mythology a lot, the sequels jumped into Eastern metaphysics.

jonplackett 5y ago
I appreciated the second 2 more on 2nd, maybe 3rd watch. They were much cleverer, but worse as entertainment. Also the secret to happiness is low expectations, and I never walked into a movie theatre with higher expectations than I did for Matrix 2.
- dmos62 5y ago
  Same, on both points.
- Razengan 5y ago
  Matrix 2 was a cliffhanger leading to a letdown, but I loved the many little worldbuilding elements (like The Merovingian etc.)
  - jonplackett 5y ago
    The thing I struggled with on first watch was knowing how important events are. If this person dies or this person is caught, how good / bad is that? In the first film every character motivation is crystal clear, every character change is obvious and massive and compelling. I still get a tingle at the exact point where Neo wraps the rope around his arm and decides he’s going to catch a helicopter to save Trinity.

atatatat 5y ago

He didn't want his art to be cheapened by having random clowns being shown as if they had those skills.

elefanten 5y ago
And yet he got to see that day anyway

forgotmypw17 5y ago

Sequels? ?:-^