Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

wegotthiscovered.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 323 posts

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#201

Post by lukifer »

Barrin92 wrote: post #97
titzer wrote: post #61

I saw it twice. I honestly cannot tell if Lana Wachowski hates the Matrix or not. There was this meta montage of "oh we have to make a sequel to the Matrix because the suits wanted it, everybody pile on stupid crap", which was obviously a middle finger to...someone. I laughed out loud at how over the top that blatant F-U was...but given that the movie proceeded to then actually crap on every single thing that was awe…

I think so, or at least the film was very self-aware of the fact the Matrix as a movie franchise has exactly become what the Matrix in the original movie was, a repetitive, stagnant world that exists solely to suck the lifeforce out of its subjects. This is a critique that Baudrillard (whose work is featured in the original) actually had already of the original trilogy itself when he stated that "the matrix is the ki…

I recently learned that Baudrillard (author of "Simulacra and Simulation", referenced in the first Matrix) criticized the first film as being something that The Matrix would have produced itself, to feed its prisoners an illusory red pill. I can't help but wonder if Lana took that criticism to heart.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#202

Post by mbg721 »

the_doctah wrote: post #187
liamwire wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m absolutely with you here. I walked into it having intentionally avoided the trailers, and treating the whole existence as a thrown-bone, a “here’s one last throwback to something truly special, in a time when we could all use some familiarity,” while remaining self-aware, and tongue-in-cheek. It knew what it was, looked that right in the face, and said ‘don’t take it too seriously.’ And I didn’t, and it was great…

>one last throwback If only. Alas, I doubt it.

Now come on, how many times can we do "The Brady Bunch meet The Matrix"??

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#203

Post by the_doctah »

Spivak wrote: post #162
boxmonster wrote: post #118

The Matrix is a 'trans metaphor', Lilly Wachowski says. "That was the original intention but the world wasn't quite ready," says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435 That killed my interest in it because I didn't want to see a message movie. I liked the earlier movies because of the Science Fiction and people like Elon M…

That quote is talking about the first movie. The original one. Neo’s story is a cleverly hidden but also extremely thin metaphor about a trans woman finding herself. That scene with the red and blue pills is literally Neo choosing estrogen over antidepressants. “Mr. Anderson” with that iconic over the top emphasis on the mister is Neo getting deadnamed. Neo has this feeling that the world is wrong (gender dysphoria)…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#204

Post by vmception »

gamblor956 wrote: post #180
vmception wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need Hollywood accounting when the expenses exceed the revenue, you can still pocket the revenue for yourself though. You can just stagger things across tax years. Everyone should do themselves a favor and pay for a CPA firm (not just your friend that happens to be a CPA), learn some things just treat it as expensive education. Its very different doing exploratory stuff with a CPA, compared to needing a CPA…

I think this is great advice, since the first few years of my tax career were spent helping people deal with all the crap that CPAs got them into. CPAs are good at math and accounting and generally quite bad at reading and applying the law. Use a CPA for your tax filings, and use a tax lawyer for anything that involves complexity. Tax law is administrative law, so a lot of things that would apply to criminal law does…

Sort of, things can reverse on the administrative side especially when relying on private letter rulings!

I would say make enough money for appeals court!

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#205

Post by wyldfire »

oliyoung wrote: post #82
titzer wrote: post #61

I saw it twice. I honestly cannot tell if Lana Wachowski hates the Matrix or not. There was this meta montage of "oh we have to make a sequel to the Matrix because the suits wanted it, everybody pile on stupid crap", which was obviously a middle finger to...someone. I laughed out loud at how over the top that blatant F-U was...but given that the movie proceeded to then actually crap on every single thing that was awe…

> I honestly cannot tell if Lana Wachowski hates the Matrix or not. The movies and the production of them? Yes. The concept and story? No. > Did she honestly ruin it on purpose? Yes. I think she did.

I loved "Alien." Just an awesome film. Over the years there have been several sequels and spinoffs. Probably more bad than good. But there's definitely been some good ones. I just spend less time thinking about the bad ones.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#206

Post by ruined »

yucky wrote: post #191
ruined wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when it was originally written, the most common estrogen pill on the market was red. short answer: the matrix is gender. but it also represents any social construct pretty generically, and that's why there's so much confusion. long answer: duck duck go matrix transgender. also, like, when a creator tells you their work means a thing, just take them at their word. they would know. you can criticize how well or how poo…

>when it was originally written, the most common estrogen pill on the market was red. As Don Quixote once said "El Oh El"

i know, right. reactionaries will misread anything. literally bootstraps and bad apples.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#207

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

minimaxir wrote: post #193
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of person would take something of their own and ruin it like that? Tons of people loved the matrix, just let it be.

It was rumored that WB would have made another Matrix without Wachowski involvement if she had not agreed to it. Who knows how that would have turned out.

Sure ok, but so what?

What kind of person (allegedly) sinks a movie franchise out of spite?

How about… Not do that and put effort into everything you do?

IDK. Not sure I buy this and think it’s possible the Wachowskis that made the first movies are gone, and this was a good effort. ♬don’t let money change ya♬.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#208

Post by brightball »

Apocryphon wrote: post #169
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of person would take something of their own and ruin it like that? Tons of people loved the matrix, just let it be.

I really don't like this new movie, but it doesn't impact my enjoyment of the ones that came before. If I really cared to, I can just pretend that this movie doesn't exist, as people are fond of doing to the original two sequels. Even from a "cinematic universe" or "canon" perspective I don't recognize its ability to affect the previous story; we're living in a rapidly accelerating era of media where escapism command…

Exactly. There are only 3 Indiana Jones movies.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#209

Post by sandworm101 »

zizee wrote: post #182
pessimizer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wikipedia says the film cost $190m, which seems reasonable for a film like this And you can add half of that again for the marketing budget.

I have always assumed those numbers are fudged, and included marketing. I don't really know much about the industry, or what it take to make a film like this, but $100m is enough to pay 1000 people 100k. Did this film take that many people, that long to make? I would imagine CGI is reducing a lot of expensive things (like blowing up aircraft, and expensive location shoots).

Yes. And the equipment. And the studio spaces. And the a-list actors/dir3ctors/producers who took home many millions each. 200million was once an insane budget (Waterworld) but with movies these day grossing into the billions (Endgame et al) 200mil is no longer a stretch.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#210

Post by chipotle_coyote »

mason55 wrote: post #149
samsin wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the specific licensing agreement between HBO and Warner Bros, but it's likely they agreed upon a flat fee with additional $ per viewer. I don't think these deals would ever hinge solely on how many new subscribers joined the platform specifically to view that movie, which would be difficult to prove anyway. From HBO's perspective, they also benefit from having a 'blockbuster' in their catalogue since it…

HBO is owned by Warner

That doesn't mean that there isn't a contract between HBO and Warner Studios involved for this, as crazy as it sounds. It doesn't mean that there definitively is one, either -- but depending on how the different divisions are structured, HBO may well be paying Warner for the streaming rights.

My impression is that this sort of deal -- where the production arm may well shop around a product to different networks/services, even if the parent company actually owns one -- is becoming less common as nearly everyone's starting their own streaming service, but AFAIK it still happens, particularly for movies.

Post reply on HN