3 ms·

So at first I dismissed your comment and moved on. But then I realized... maybe this was a troll? If WB really did try to strong arm her into making another one

So at first I dismissed your comment and moved on. But then I realized... maybe this was a troll? If WB really did try to strong arm her into making another one, this feels like the perfect response. "Sure, I'll make another one..." and then proceeds to make sure they never make a 5th. On the other hand, she has said in interviews that she was motivated by a personal loss to reach out and try to make it. Not sure who actually initiated trying to get the movie made as I've heard both versions now.

parrellel 5y ago
Both can definitely be true. The movie can be trolling Warner Bros and be trying to say something personally valuable to the director.
ascagnel_ 5y ago
I’ve heard a different version: that the Wachowskis were told the reboot would be going ahead with or without them. The movie feels like a very personal “screw you, executives”, in that it denies catharsis to some of the most popular parts of the first movie and at the same time makes some very, very clear statements that echo what Lana Wachowski has said in the past. It’s what a revival should be: it gives you a way to observe the original work from a radically different perspective, while still building on it. The only other revival that’s done it better has been Twin Peaks: The Return.
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  > the Wachowskis were told the reboot would be going ahead with or without them. The writers made this part of the plot of the repeating inner world. Between that moment and the painful scenes of the game designers' cyclic rounds of buzzword bingo, I agree that the movie was at least trolling the WB executives.
  - sgarman 5y ago
    > trolling the WB executives In my mind that's undeniably true. The question I want to know is why was the rest of the movie so bad, was that also bad on purpose or just poor execution?
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      The pandemic probably affected the production grievously.
- emptyparadise 5y ago
  I'm sure you can understand why our beloved parent company, Warner Brothers, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They informed me they're gonna do it with or without us.

parrellel 5y ago

Both can definitely be true. The movie can be trolling Warner Bros and be trying to say something personally valuable to the director.

ascagnel_ 5y ago

I’ve heard a different version: that the Wachowskis were told the reboot would be going ahead with or without them. The movie feels like a very personal “screw you, executives”, in that it denies catharsis to some of the most popular parts of the first movie and at the same time makes some very, very clear statements that echo what Lana Wachowski has said in the past. It’s what a revival should be: it gives you a way to observe the original work from a radically different perspective, while still building on it. The only other revival that’s done it better has been Twin Peaks: The Return.

brandmeyer 5y ago
> the Wachowskis were told the reboot would be going ahead with or without them. The writers made this part of the plot of the repeating inner world. Between that moment and the painful scenes of the game designers' cyclic rounds of buzzword bingo, I agree that the movie was at least trolling the WB executives.
- sgarman 5y ago
  > trolling the WB executives In my mind that's undeniably true. The question I want to know is why was the rest of the movie so bad, was that also bad on purpose or just poor execution?
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    The pandemic probably affected the production grievously.
emptyparadise 5y ago
I'm sure you can understand why our beloved parent company, Warner Brothers, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy. They informed me they're gonna do it with or without us.