They're making a Matrix 5.

[KorvinStarmast]

But people like Batman and Spiderman.

The Spiderman movies have been, in a word, awful. (OK, I give Willem Dafoe a pass). Look, I grew up reading Spiderman comic books (and other comic books) and reading the strip in the daily and weekend newspapers. (60's and 70's). The movies failed Spiderman.

Hell, they are making a new Highlander film, despite the fact that it is infamous for terrible sequels.

I got the idea that they are re-making the first one, but don't quote me on that. Might have misunderstood the blurb I read in passing.

[Talakeal]

The Spiderman movies have been, in a word, awful. (OK, I give Willem Dafoe a pass). Look, I grew up reading Spiderman comic books (and other comic books) and reading the strip in the daily and weekend newspapers. (60's and 70's). The movies failed Spiderman.
I got the idea that they are re-making the first one, but don't quote me on that. Might have misunderstood the blurb I read in passing.

Maybe so, but objectively Spiderman movies do much better than Matrix movies.

There is only one Spiderman film with a rotten tomatoes score below 90, and all of them have made over 700 million at the box office with two entries well over a billion. No Matrix movie, even the original, has made even half that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe so, but objectively Spiderman movies do much better than Matrix movies.

There is only one Spiderman film with a rotten tomatoes score below 90, and all of them have made over 700 million at the box office with two entries well over a billion. No Matrix movie, even the original, has made even half that.

Fair point. They have been well received.

[Ramza00]

Maybe so, but objectively Spiderman movies do much better than Matrix movies.

There is only one Spiderman film with a rotten tomatoes score below 90, and all of them have made over 700 million at the box office with two entries well over a billion. No Matrix movie, even the original, has made even half that.

the Matrix Reloaded (#2) came out in 2003 and made $741 million, and Spider-Man #1 with Tobey came out in 2002 made $825 million and the 2004 sequel Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004 and made $789 million. Those are very close! I think something else is going on (let me suggest a theory)

all of these are weird for prior to the MCU superhero formula … sequels in movies almost always made less money than #2 and #3 in a franchise. There is a reason why Matrix 3 (Revolutions) made only $427 million when it came out in 2003, 6 months later after the #2. People felt you needed to see the previous movie in the series and DVD culture is new thing in 2003, it will hit its max numbers in 2006 with the 2006 numbers being double the sales compared to the 2003 numbers in billions per year.

Yet DVD sales per year start going down in 2007 due to people having a dvd library already and the rise of youtube.

What I am saying here is Sam Raimi 00s Spider-Man, Matrix 2 and 3, and Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings (the other even bigger success) were made with different expectations of writing IP and stories. How you make the money either at the theaters, cable tv, dvds, and so on. You write a trilogy at most, and even trilogies often do worse than a successful #1. All this changes with the rise of the internet. The internet allows fan culture to span dozens of movies. A much like serial tv plots becomes possible in the 90s but it really needed the 00s with dvd and the internet to take off.

Take for example Batman Begins in 05, it made 373 million, Dark Knight made 1.085 billion in 2008, and Dark Knight Rises in 2012 made 1.006 billion

The internet changes everything in ways one can not instantly predict.

[Talakeal]

the Matrix Reloaded (#2) came out in 2003 and made $741 million, and Spider-Man #1 with Tobey came out in 2002 made $825 million and the 2004 sequel Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004 and made $789 million. Those are very close! I think something else is going on (let me suggest a theory)

all of these are weird for prior to the MCU superhero formula … sequels in movies almost always made less money than #2 and #3 in a franchise. There is a reason why Matrix 3 (Revolutions) made only $427 million when it came out in 2003, 6 months later after the #2. People felt you needed to see the previous movie in the series and DVD culture is new thing in 2003, it will hit its max numbers in 2006 with the 2006 numbers being double the sales compared to the 2003 numbers in billions per year.

Yet DVD sales per year start going down in 2007 due to people having a dvd library already and the rise of youtube.

What I am saying here is Sam Raimi 00s Spider-Man, Matrix 2 and 3, and Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings (the other even bigger success) were made with different expectations of writing IP and stories. How you make the money either at the theaters, cable tv, dvds, and so on. You write a trilogy at most, and even trilogies often do worse than a successful #1. All this changes with the rise of the internet. The internet allows fan culture to span dozens of movies. A much like serial tv plots becomes possible in the 90s but it really needed the 00s with dvd and the internet to take off.

Take for example Batman Begins in 05, it made 373 million, Dark Knight made 1.085 billion in 2008, and Dark Knight Rises in 2012 made 1.006 billion

The internet changes everything in ways one can not instantly predict.

Apologies, i was looking at the worldwide for spider man and the domestic for matrix, the numbers are indeed a lot closer than i let on.

[tomandtish]

The Spiderman movies have been, in a word, awful. (OK, I give Willem Dafoe a pass). Look, I grew up reading Spiderman comic books (and other comic books) and reading the strip in the daily and weekend newspapers. (60's and 70's). The movies failed Spiderman.
I got the idea that they are re-making the first one, but don't quote me on that. Might have misunderstood the blurb I read in passing.

Ahh, Spiderman movies. The first trilogy (Toby) suffered in that while Toby made a good Spiderman, he didn't make a good Peter Parker. The Amazing movies were the opposite (Garfield as a good parker but not a good Spiderman). Holland strikes a nice balance.

As for Matrix 5, it's certainly not a "see in theater" film for me. I'll wait until I can see it on video somewhere. because the biggest problem with 4 to me wasn't that it was bad (or not just bad_). it was boring and unrememberable. 3 days after I saw that movie I couldn't remember anything significant about it, which usually means it couldn't keep my attention. To me, that's a true kiss of death.

[Lemmy]

There is a reason why Matrix 3 (Revolutions) made only $427 million when it came out in 2003, 6 months later after the #2. People felt you needed to see the previous movie in the series and DVD culture is new thing in 2003, it will hit its max numbers in 2006 with the 2006 numbers being double the sales compared to the 2003 numbers in billions per year.

Well... That and Matrix 2 turned a lot of people off, TBH.

Admittedly, it's a personal anecdote... But at that time, my older brother used to own a video rental store and I used to help there sometimes as a kid...

And I distinctly remember quite a few customers mentioning being so disappointed by M2 that they didn't bother seeing 3 in theaters and decided to wait for the DVD (or even not watch it at all).

[Ramza00]

Well... That and Matrix 2 turned a lot of people off, TBH.

Admittedly, it's a personal anecdote... But at that time, my older brother used to own a video rental store and I used to help there sometimes as a kid...

And I distinctly remember quite a few customers mentioning being so disappointed by M2 that they didn't bother seeing 3 in theaters and decided to wait for the DVD (or even not watch it at all).

I am not disagreeing with this (we agree 👍)

my point is from a sociological perspective. You are not going to get many people who want to watch Matrix 3 if they have not seen Matrix 2 6 months earlier in the theaters. Sure the DVD was released 3 weeks earlier but I am skeptical of DVD to opening movie of the 3rd one, and there was no cable customers.

Thus we are talking about a 42% loss of fan base (or did not watch the 3rd one multiple times, but did watch the 2nd one multiple times) based off the box office numbers.

It was a social experiment one that did not make sense at the time (hindsight bias). But what do you wanna bet that Spider-Verse 3 is going to do roughly as well perhaps better than Spider-Verse 2. (my point is society and tech changes, changes the industry)

used Spider-Verse 2 and 3 for originally they were going to be 9 months apart, something close to Matrix 2 and 3. But the March 2024 re-lease for Spider-Verse 3 is now looking to be something in 2025 due to delays and calendar. So it may be 1 maybe 2 years apart after all.

[Aedilred]

While it's true that the box office for the first Spiderman movies and Reloaded were pretty similar, we can already see a steep tailing-off by the time we get to Revolutions, which occurred in 2003, years before the end of the "DVD boom" (I'm a little sceptical about the extent to which that's a factor, but I'll accept it for now), while Spiderman 3 did solid numbers even in 2007: indeed it's the highest-grossing Spiderman film prior to the MCU.

No live-action film with "Spiderman" in the title has ever grossed less than $700m. Indeed the only Spiderman film ever to gross less than that was Into the Spider-Verse, which cost a lot less to make than any of the others or indeed any of the Matrix sequels . Spiderman films are absolutely bankable, and studio execs will continue to greenlight them until they get a flop.

The Matrix is a different story. The first movie did very well, but topped out at less than $500m. Reloaded, the movie riding the crest of the Matrix hype wave, was the only movie to do Spiderman numbers. Matrix Revolutions grossed a fair bit by the standards of the day, but it was a box office disappointment relative to expectations. Then Resurrection failed to break even. That's the kind of trajectory that should really be making studio financiers think twice.

Of course there are various other things to take into account: inflation, changes in moviegoing habits, the collapse of home media sales, etc. but we have samples across the range for both series: the bare fact seems to be that Spiderman is just more reliably profitable.

[Tyndmyr]

the Matrix Reloaded (#2) came out in 2003 and made $741 million, and Spider-Man #1 with Tobey came out in 2002 made $825 million and the 2004 sequel Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004 and made $789 million. Those are very close! I think something else is going on (let me suggest a theory)

all of these are weird for prior to the MCU superhero formula … sequels in movies almost always made less money than #2 and #3 in a franchise. There is a reason why Matrix 3 (Revolutions) made only $427 million when it came out in 2003, 6 months later after the #2. People felt you needed to see the previous movie in the series and DVD culture is new thing in 2003, it will hit its max numbers in 2006 with the 2006 numbers being double the sales compared to the 2003 numbers in billions per year.

Eh, the James Bond franchise was successful for quite some time. #2 movies being big wasn't that rare. Terminator 2 was widely considered superior to the original, and Aliens a step up from the already successful Alien. The box office totals reflected those numbers.

Yes, there were always some bad sequels, some cash ins, some direct to DvD nonsense. That wasn't inevitable, though. Good movies did well, sequel or not. Bad movies performed terribly. In some cases, a bad sequel can even bank some decent money cashing in on the good will of a popular first film before expectations adjust. This, too, is not new.

I don't know that there was any sudden change. Yes, sequels have become more popular, but that seems to be a gradual trend, and I don't think it much excuses anything about the Matrix films, though it might explain why studios are willing to give #5 a go.

I don't think the Wachowski's are going to be back for this one? Honestly that interests me more then anything. I still would say I'm a fan of their films and willing to go check out anything they make but I can't say I wouldn't be interested in seeing what some other people with fresher takes might want to do with the property.

Eh, they absolutely struck gold with the first Matrix, but they have also put out quite a lot of dodgy stuff. Probably no better than Shyamalan overall. A really spotty record like that does make you wonder about it. Do they need a certain degree of oversight? Was it related to real world events in their lives? Is it something about their style that doesn't lend itself to rework? Dunno. But I do know that Jupiter Ascending was really rough.

I'm not sure that new people really makes a difference for me. I can't say that I think it'd be good either way, I'd need some *really* interesting news or trailers to seriously consider watching it.

[Dragonus45]

Eh, they absolutely struck gold with the first Matrix, but they have also put out quite a lot of dodgy stuff. Probably no better than Shyamalan overall. A really spotty record like that does make you wonder about it. Do they need a certain degree of oversight? Was it related to real world events in their lives? Is it something about their style that doesn't lend itself to rework? Dunno. But I do know that Jupiter Ascending was really rough.

I'm not sure that new people really makes a difference for me. I can't say that I think it'd be good either way, I'd need some *really* interesting news or trailers to seriously consider watching it.

I'll admit a lot of their stuff is dodgy but it tends to still strike a chord with me just being up my alley more often than not, and like another directer I really like but who can't seem to consistently make good **** (Zack Snyder) I feel like a lot of their mistakes come from trying to make something great and then failing at it then trying to make something safe and boring so even when the movie is bad it feels intersting. Also Speed Racer is an underrated masterpiece.

[Ramza00]

Eh, the James Bond franchise was successful for quite some time. #2 movies being big wasn't that rare. Terminator 2 was widely considered superior to the original, and Aliens a step up from the already successful Alien. The box office totals reflected those numbers.

Yes, there were always some bad sequels, some cash ins, some direct to DvD nonsense. That wasn't inevitable, though. Good movies did well, sequel or not. Bad movies performed terribly. In some cases, a bad sequel can even bank some decent money cashing in on the good will of a popular first film before expectations adjust. This, too, is not new.

I don't know that there was any sudden change. Yes, sequels have become more popular, but that seems to be a gradual trend, and I don't think it much excuses anything about the Matrix films, though it might explain why studios are willing to give #5 a go.

I am going to agree with your 3 paragraphs, so see me as doing 80% agreement. But the James Bond phenomenon is very weird *laughs*

It kind of created a new genre, but also arguably the genre was going to occur even if that movies did not get made [ of course this is not falsifiable ] There are about 50 Eurospy films , also called Spaghetti spy films that launched in less than 5 years from 1964 to 1968 (aka 2 years after Dr No) and like 250 of them if you extend it to the late 50s to the 2000s. Furthermore we can trace what these movies had in common with previous genres like the Spaghetti Western, Sword and Sandal, Film Noir, etc and how these Eurospy films are also very different genre than what came before.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ahh, Spiderman movies. The first trilogy (Toby) suffered in that while Toby made a good Spiderman, he didn't make a good Peter Parker.

You captured some of my disappointment perfectly there.

[Dragonus45]

You captured some of my disappointment perfectly there.

I'm totally backwards on that, I felt like he made a great Peter Parker because he perfectly captured the ways in with Peter can be so kind and heroic and also just so pathetic and kind of a loser in a lowkey way. But his Spiderman felt lacking to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm totally backwards on that, I felt like he made a great Peter Parker because he perfectly captured the ways in with Peter can be so kind and heroic and also just so pathetic and kind of a loser in a lowkey way. But his Spiderman felt lacking to me.

That is a part of my problem with the Toby Parker: in the Spiderman I grew up with, he's not a nerd.
He's a freelance photographer, he's got the hottest girlfriend around (see the syndicated strips in the newspapers) and his boss is an alpha jerk. (He makes the Editor Superman/Clark Kent works for seem an pushover).

We are, however, drifting well off topic since Matrix is the movie coming out.

[Talakeal]

That is a part of my problem with the Toby Parker: in the Spiderman I grew up with, he's not a nerd.
He's a freelance photographer, he's got the hottest girlfriend around (see the syndicated strips in the newspapers) and his boss is an alpha jerk. (He makes the Editor Superman/Clark Kent works for seem an pushover).

We are, however, drifting well off topic since Matrix is the movie coming out.

I agree here.

Although I think JK Simmons performance was really the only outstanding part of the Spiderman films, so maybe not.

[Millstone85]

The Last Jedi and The Matrix Resurrections, two movies I am convinced were saying "I dare you to make another sequel after this, for I am become Death the destroyer of worlds". The former has so far succeeded in its goal, as all the good new material has remained set earlier in the Star Wars fictional timeline.

I am actually rooting for Matrix 5, if only out of the same spite that Matrix 4 was written with.

[warty goblin]

The first two Sam Raimi Spidermans are the only time in my life I have cared about Spiderman. Otherwise he's nearly as boring as Batman.

[tomandtish]

That is a part of my problem with the Toby Parker: in the Spiderman I grew up with, he's not a nerd.
He's a freelance photographer, he's got the hottest girlfriend around (see the syndicated strips in the newspapers) and his boss is an alpha jerk. (He makes the Editor Superman/Clark Kent works for seem an pushover).

We are, however, drifting well off topic since Matrix is the movie coming out.

Seems generational. I grew up with mine in the 70s.