Are the Wachowskis just f--king done at this point or what?

Same as M Night Shyamalan........couple of half decent early films aside, they've proven to be pretty average (at best) filmmakers all things considered. At least they tried to be different, I guess.
 
Not trying to knock transgender people but when I see people like these guys and Caitlin Jenner the notion of desperately striving for attention and relevancy comes to mind.

I’m uneducated in this area but I would have thought once you are past 25 years you have formed your gender identity. After that (especially 50 or more) other factors are in play. Factors that make it hard for me to respect that person on any level.
 
I can see them being beaten and Daddy calling them little girls their whole childhood. Throw in a funny uncle and bam!

The Matrix was amazing and I enjoyed the 2nd one as well. Everything else was boring.
 
The reason they are done is because every story they tell now includes some androgynous or homosexual character engaging in uncomfortable man on man or woman who used to be a man on man who used to be a woman love scenes. They make these characters the focal point of the story making many moviegoers uncomfortable and unable to relate.
 
It's tough and not easily digestible, plus the Wachowskis have once again mined their "humans as resources" motif making its reveal somewhat trite and thus its climax hollow. The most difficult part is accepting that each character arc spans several lifetimes, specifically the notion that the same actor undergoes racial make-up that simply does not work on a visual level. It's almost impossible to maintain suspension of disbelief when Keith David is playing a Korean freedom fighter.

I get the idea it's a much easier novel to read than a film to watch.

That being said, I would say it's somewhere between the sprawling fictional mythos of LOST combined with the overwrought, "driving" narrative style of Nolan.

if you're into reading and able to give his weird fascination with the under aged, Piers Anthony wrote a series of books called, Shame of man, Isle of Woman and Shame of Earth. Same concept with following a group of characters through the past present and future.

Pretty sure they stole the idea from Anthony.
 
I kind of figured that's what they were trying to show, but fuck it was hard for me to follow. Knowing that is indeed the case might make a big difference in understanding it, I'll try and rewatch it I suppose.


I wouldn't worry too much about following it or understanding it; noone outside of the makers can truly pin it down.

You just need to get the gist;

It's about karma basically, and how people's actions/character traits echo through time and affect the present and future.

I tried to connect the dots myself as I was watching it; for example how each incarnation of Tom Hanks' characters was linked, but couldn't really do it.

I just get the gist of it. That's all you need
 
Wouldn't two siblings being transgender be ultimate proof of mental illness ?
 
Agreed. It was when the second brother also did that shit where I was like, What in the actual fuck?

I figured he was just putting up with his brother's shit because, you know, it's his brother. So when he went in the same direction I was quite surprised.


Don't you have a brother?

Once 1 brother gets something, the other always has to have one too?

In this case, lose something ; )
 
The reason they are done is because every story they tell now includes some androgynous or homosexual character engaging in uncomfortable man on man or woman who used to be a man on man who used to be a woman love scenes. They make these characters the focal point of the story making many moviegoers uncomfortable and unable to relate.
Normalizing atypical sexual orientation is a tough row to hoe, and man are they rather insistent on it. It's a hard balance to strike: a film being progressive but at the same time palatable to the marketplace. Either they don't know their audience or they're trying to create one that doesn't know how to support its own progress. Maybe that's unfair of me to say, because how does a film achieve such a thing as a motivated audience?

"By not being shit" of course. But no one really knows how to do that with 100% accuracy.

Pretty sure they stole the idea from Anthony.
CLOUD ATLAS was a novel before it was a movie; not sure whether it predates the Piers Anthony thing.

I read some of his Xanth books, which were all well enough but for that level of fiction I prefer Steven Brust and Neil Gaiman -- something on the level of THE STARS MY DESTINATION. Punchier.

Wouldn't two siblings being transgender be ultimate proof of mental illness ?
I would point to too much wealth.
 
Wouldn't two siblings being transgender be ultimate proof of mental illness ?

What about the other 99.9% of trangenders whose brothers were "normal"?

Wouldn't that be the ultimate proof that it wasn't mental illness?
 
I don’t know, but I always thought The Matrix was overrated. When it released in theaters, I was 13, and all my friends were losing their shit over it. For all intents and purposes, I was at the age that I probably should have thought it was cool too, but I watched it when it released on video, and I thought it was just okay. I later saw the sequels in the theaters and thought they were worse. I’ve never rewatched any of them.

Now I can’t believe that The Matrix came out when I was 13. Christ alive, time flies!
 
Normalizing atypical sexual orientation is a tough row to hoe, and man are they rather insistent on it. It's a hard balance to strike: a film being progressive but at the same time palatable to the marketplace. Either they don't know their audience or they're trying to create one that doesn't know how to support its own progress. Maybe that's unfair of me to say, because how does a film achieve such a thing as a motivated audience?

"By not being shit" of course. But no one really knows how to do that with 100% accuracy.


CLOUD ATLAS was a novel before it was a movie; not sure whether it predates the Piers Anthony thing.

I read some of his Xanth books, which were all well enough but for that level of fiction I prefer Steven Brust and Neil Gaiman -- something on the level of THE STARS MY DESTINATION. Punchier.


I would point to too much wealth.

Cloud Atlas was published in 2004, whereas Piers Anthony's novels were published between 94-97.

I'ts almost worth the read - the premise is nearly fucking identical and I'm surprised there was no lawsuit or grumblings from Anthony.

I've read all of the Xanth novels but my favorite is his Incarnations of Immortality series.....Starting with 'On a Pale Horse'......those are fucking classic.
 
Was totally mind fucked a few weeks ago when I found out what they are now.
Why? Who gives a flying fuck what they look like? Beyond their movies, who gives a shit what they're up to?
 
Unpopular opinion: I loved Cloud Atlas, I thought it was amazing and beautiful.
 
How did I know this would end up being yet another "trans people are icky" thread? :rolleyes:

That said, they never did anything particularly great in the first place. The Matrix is overrated pretentious pseudo-intellectual garbage. The only thing they ever did that I thought rated as even a B+ quality film was V for Vendetta, and even that just takes a great big shit on the source material, degrading a thought provoking discussion of anarchism vs. fascism into a generic American liberal fantasy. They're hacks, and have always been hacks.
 
Did they have tiny penises? We'e they gay with each other? 99% one of those.

Matrix was ok. Was also a battery commercial. "Mind makes it real" gets more stupid every time I watch.
 

This kind of clears up the mystery of the sexually ambiguous albino twins they threw into Matrix 2.



Matrix-Twins.jpg


Wachowskis-feat.jpg
 
Back
Top