Why isn't The Matrix: Resurrections playing on (m)any big screens?

[Geoff Jones]

I'm visiting family over the holidays and we are looking for a place to see The Matrix: Resurrections, but can't find any decent-sized screens showing it. Except for a few Imax showings (most of which are 2k liemax), it's only playing in crappy little auditoriums that aren't worth the trouble. The only decent option I've found is a 4k Imax laser showing on a whopping (/s) 54'-wide screen an hour away.

Why?

We are all huge movie lovers and fans of the big screen experience... or at least, we used to be.

At this point, we are leaning toward just watching it on my brother's 130" 2.39:1 home theater screen.

PS: If anyone knows of a large screen showing TM:R in the Boston area, please let me know.

[Jim Cassedy]

I'm don/t really have an answer for your poll, since the venue I'm currently associated with WILL be playing
"Matrix Resurrections" , and has decided instead to totally pass on "West Side Story", I'm not exactly sure
of the reasoning for this. (hey- - " I don't pick 'em, I just play 'em " ) I could make a few guesses:
1) Matrix_Res was filmed here in SF, and locally filmed flix always bring out good crowds here. They
were shooting at locations over town so lotsa people will come just to see their little corner of The City
on screen, even if the movie turns out to be a dud.
2) Another large venue in town has been heavily publicizing W-S-S at their place, and has even got Rita
Moreno to show up opening night which has gotten then some extra exposure in the press & online media.

The venue I'm at is going to attract a totally different crowd with MATRIX, SPIDERMAN, NIGHTMARE
ALLEY, & LICORICE PIZZA (70mm) and something else I can't remember, but no West Side Story

[Bobby Henderson]

The only decent option I've found is a 4k Imax laser showing on a whopping (/s) 54'-wide screen an hour away.

Now I'm really wondering why they don't upgrade the IMAX branded screen we have here in Lawton to IMAX with friggin' Lasers. That screen we have here is close to 80' across and has around 550 seats. It's a pretty legitimate BIG auditorium. That should be worthy of the laser-based version of IMAX. I'm kind of wondering why the re-make of Dune is held over on that screen. The new "re-imagining" of West Side Story might play really well on it. We're only Lawton, OK so I guess we're not worthy of the lasers.

Oh I almost forgot, the poll: I voted the 2nd option (exhibitors think this movie will suck total ass). The Wachowski siblings have not been batting 1000 lately. Their gender identity has made far more news than any of the movies they've made since The Matrix. Hopefully this new installment in the Matrix saga will be a big improvement over the downer that was "Revolutions." If it gets too immersed in philosophical indulgence the movie is going to bomb. Viewers want to see shit happening.

This weekend they do have the original 1999 version of The Matrix playing on that IMAX screen. I'm actually tempted to buy a ticket to watch it there, even though I have the original DVD and Blu-ray "Digi-Book" version of it at home.

Matrix_Res was filmed here in SF, and locally filmed flix always bring out good crowds here.

They didn't shoot it in Australia like the previous movies? I wonder what happened. Did the Australian government start charging film productions taxes on anything? Not that anything like that would matter. Shooting a movie in the San Francisco area would probably attract the maximum level of bureaucratic, permitting costs possible.

[Mike Blakesley]

I think the answer is probably a combination of several of those factors.

- Matrix sequels have generally been not that great compared to the original, leading to poor grosses; where the Spider-man movies have been more consistently popular....so exhibition has more confidence in Spider-man.

- It is definitely true that exhibition will give more attention/space to a movie that's a theatrical excluisve vs. one that is on tee-vee from Day 1. I know I do. Although I have to give props to Warner Bros for not just going completely hostile to exhibition, the way some other studios are doing.

- I have no idea how many screens Spidey is commandeering, but any movie that is guesstimated to be opening in the $150 to $200 million range while a pandemic is still rolling around... well, it's going to attract a lot of screens. (I hope they're not overly optimistic on that estimate.)

- One factor that isn't one of the choices: Spidey will have more of an audience, what with its PG-13 rating vs. Matrix's R. I know if I have a choice of two large movies, and one is rated R, I'll take the other non-R every time.

Finally, I think people might be more in the mood for something light and upbeat, which the Spider-Man movies deliver; vs. something more dark, which is where Matrix movies hang out.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Well, there was NEVER a Matrix Comic book when I was growing up. Ano, all the comic book people out there probably bypass them. Personally I see the comic book movies as having ruined Hollywood. It's just a bunch of crap.

[Mike Blakesley]

They'd be OK if people would also go to other movies too... but it seems like the only thing that draws big crowds is the damn comic book movies. So that's what they keep on making, of course.

[Bobby Henderson]

Much of the problem is driven by Wall Street style bean counters now running all the major studios. They don't like taking chances on any new ideas. They only want to build movies and franchises off existing intellectual property. The IP can come in the form of a comic book, old movie, old TV show, a video game or even characters from a damned TV commercial. I wouldn't put it past the studios to make a 2 hour movie or a streaming TV series about the Geico Gecko.

Studio chiefs would rather re-sell old ideas than take chances on new ideas even if the old, all-too-familiar content bombs at the box office. West Side Story is arguably the latest example. There are probably multiple factors contributing to the poor opening weekend numbers. A general public growing weary of re-makes has to be one of those factors. Just from my own personal observations I've heard other audience members groan out loud or laugh at trailers for the latest Goddamn re-make. I see this kind of thing more and more often. They're pretty sick of it. But when just about everything playing at the theater is built using the Save the Cat! clip art, beat-sheet template book as a bible what other choice do movie-goers have other than just staying home?

[Marcel Birgelen]

If I remember correctly, the first Matrix movie wasn't really an instant hit, but it needed some time to build a real audience. Something that simply isn't allowed to happen anymore nowadays. But it nevertheless became the 5th best grossing movie of 1999, with quite some strong competition that year.

As for the sequels, I remember them to be highly anticipated and the first sequel ended up being the 3rd best grossing movie in 2003. The biggest letdown was the third movie, which ended up on 11th place in 2003.

Besides many people being turned off by the first sequel, I guess having two Matrix sequels in one year was simply pushing it...

This new Matrix movie seems to be far less anticipated than the first sequel back then, combined with the fact that there is some steep competition and the day-and-date release on streaming, I can understand why exhibitors are betting on the safer option by filling their biggest screen with Spiderman...

[Bobby Henderson]

18 years is a pretty long gap between installments in a movie saga. It's more than enough time for an entertaining movie idea to grow stale. The last movie in The Matrix saga left it on a pretty bad note. This new movie, I presume, will try to repair some of that damage.

18 years is a generation-wide period of time similar to the gulf between the original Star Wars trilogy and its prequels. Even though those prequels technically made a lot of money (thanks in part to ticket price inflation) they did not generate the kind of pop culture excitement and magic as the original three movies.

The 1999 original release of The Matrix was not initially a huge hit. It was released in a somewhat odd time of year, the end of March, 1999. During a lot of years the late March thru April time frame can be a period where studios clear out a lot of junky releases ahead of the summer movie season. The then-new DVD format was just starting to take off and The Matrix was a tremendous hit on DVD in the Fall of 1999. Warner Bros priced the disc very cheap. I think I paid something like $14 for it back then. Other DVDs were priced well over $20 or even $30 back then. Today DVD collections in many homes are gathering dust now.

The Matrix: Ressurrections is the first movie from The Wachowskis since Jupiter Ascending in 2015. Jupiter Ascending was a pretty big flop with both critics and audiences (a 38% audience score at Rotten Tomatoes is pretty bad). Then there's Cloud Atlas (2012), Speed Racer (2008) and V for Vendetta (2005). The marketing of The Matrix: Ressurrections is more centered around its stars. Keanu Reeves has been in some recent hits, like the John Wick saga. It might be a deliberate choice that he looks more like John Wick than Neo in this new movie.

[Jon Dent]

Theaters are deciding that Spiderman and Sing 2 are going to do more business.

Were a duplex and we're holding off Matrix until January.

[Bobby Henderson]

As of Thursday night, 6 days from the release date, there are still no advance reviews up. No Rotten Tomatoes score. I guess WB has either imposed an "embargo" on when advance reviews can be published or maybe they have held no advance screenings at all. Either way it's not a good sign for the movie. Meanwhile Spiderman: No Way Home is boasting a 95% score at Rotten Tomatoes.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I've noticed that there are some ratings on IMDB already, but I guess those are mostly from idiots voting before they've seen anything.

The embargo on the details of the storyline are probably part of WB's marketing campaign. Depending on the initial reception, I think this movie might end up being more popular than we think.

Epic Games recently released an impressive tech-demo of their Unreal 5 engine, called "The Matrix Awakens", if you own a PS5 or XBox Series X console, you can actually try this demo yourself. Besides some pretty amazing next-gen graphics, this whole thing may point at some plot points of the movie itself.

Personally, I think I almost feel a bit bad for the Wachowskis. This one is apparently also only directed by one of them. But none of their output since the original Matrix did ever really beat their first movie. Besides the Matrix sequels, the only other movie that ever made some money back is probably V for Vendetta. It's almost like seeing George Lucas operating. George Lucas may be a fabulous storyteller, but if you give him full control of a project, the output most likely, will be completely out of touch with the audience. It's almost like the same happened to the Wachowskis: the original Matrix was probably still strictly supervised by the studio and maybe that's actually what saved it from going into territories, most of the audience didn't want to go.

[Jon Dent]

Social media embargo lifted today. The opinions are a bit mixed.

[David Ferguson]

This weekend they do have the original 1999 version of The Matrix playing on that IMAX screen. I'm actually tempted to buy a ticket to watch it there, even though I have the original DVD and Blu-ray "Digi-Book" version of it at home.

My local arthouse cinema showed the original 1999 The Matrix this week, and I went and thoroughly enjoyed it. This is the first time I'd seen it in the cinema (I was only just born when it came out!) and I'm so glad I went to see it. Watching it again gives me hope for this new film, although since the two sequels were (in my opinion) dreadful, it'll be a toss up whether it'll be any good or not.